User:Winklec3/Apatheia/Coolguy500 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Winklec3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winklec3/Apatheia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Apatheia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * Intro:
 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes! I liked the intro and that you elaborated on the negative connotations. Perhaps add another adjective and remove etc? The language is neutral in the intro and I think that your additions were good.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes.
 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, no, no.


 * Article Structure:
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The paragraphs flow in a way that makes sense, but I wonder if you could split everything up into an intro and then a body paragraph or two? I wonder what pictures you could put in your article. maybe a picture of Seneca?
 * Coverage Balance:
 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Yes, no, and no. However, it might be helpful to split your article up into different sections.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes and no. However, I wonder if there are more literature you can cite throughout the article?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it did not.
 * Content Neutrality:
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? In the paragraph "the term was later adopted..." I wonder if there is a more neutral way to say "better energy". Overall your additions to the article were good and your language was neutral! There are just a few places where your language could be more neutral.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? No.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? No.
 * Sources:
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? I noticed that you do not have that many references on your page currently or citations in the content. The one reference you do have seems like a good source, but are there others you could add?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? I noticed that you do not have that many references on your page currently or citations in the content. The one reference you do have seems like a good source, but are there others you could add?
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.