User talk:Braelynn2000/Philosopher kings

Hey Braelynn2000! Nice work on this addition to the article. I think this paragraph you added fits in nicely with the flow of the overall article. From what I can tell, the source you used is reputable and reliable. And it's recent, so great job there. You clearly and concisely establish what an epistocracy is, and I liked your inclusion of Brennan's six types of epistocracies. There is only one sentence I would nitpick: "One should be cautious to equate the concept of the philosopher king with epistocracy because many epistocrats are uncomfortable with the idea of one philosopher king or a small group of philosopher kings being the ultimate source of authority; some prefer a very large and diverse epistocratic polity." In this sentence, you use normative language, encouraging the reader to "be cautious." I think that this sentence is important, because it establishes the difference between some philosopher kings and epistocrats. Perhaps reword the structure here, and mention only the tension between epistocrats and philosopher kings. I would also take away the "some prefer" aspect unless you can reference the specific epistocrats who "prefer a large and diverse epistocratic polity." Otherwise, great work!

I'm curious to see what else you add on! I think this article could have a more expansive paragraph about "The Republic"; maybe add in how Socrates wanted to establish rule in the Republic. Regardless of what you add, I encourage you to find one or two more sources to use. Regardless, awesome job so far! Emma Adriana (talk)

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Braeylnn2000 Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Braelynn2000/Philosopher_kings?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Philosopher king Evaluate the drafted changes lead – I would add a quick update to the lead to include your addition of epistocracy. I'd also add a concise sentence summarizing the article. The lead is almost too short, but I understand that it's length reflects the length of the article. It's a small article for sure, but the lead could use 1-2 more sentences.

Content added - yes! The content added is extremely relevant. Reading the article with the addition of epistocracy gives context to the concept of "philosopher kings," and how some of them wished to, or did, operate. All content is up to date, relevant, and it does not deal with a content gap.

Tone and balance - most of the content added is neutral, but there is a sentence i would tweak. I included it already in your talk page because I was confused about the format of this peer review, so you might've already seen it. In case you haven't, here's my critique again: There is only one sentence I would nitpick: "One should be cautious to equate the concept of the philosopher king with epistocracy because many epistocrats are uncomfortable with the idea of one philosopher king or a small group of philosopher kings being the ultimate source of authority; some prefer a very large and diverse epistocratic polity." In this sentence, you use normative language, encouraging the reader to "be cautious." I think that this sentence is important, because it establishes the difference between some philosopher kings and epistocrats. Perhaps reword the structure here, and mention only the tension between epistocrats and philosopher kings. I would also take away the "some prefer" aspect unless you can reference the specific epistocrats who "prefer a large and diverse epistocratic polity."

Sources and references - I would find some more sources. You've only got one! Maybe do a database search to find other works written about philosopher kings/epistocracies, maybe even a search into historical philosophical topics and how they were influenced by the idea of philosopher kings... just a thought. Maybe you could take this article into a more modern perspective; are there current "philosopher kings?" I am thinking specifically of the start of the 20th century, when philosophers were trying to find a place for philosophy in the burgeoning world of science. Do philosopher kings have any relevancy here? However, the source you do have is reliable, current, and you properly cite the information.

Organization - the content added is well-organized, and it makes sense for the flow of the article you're editing. It is clear and easy to read; I would only change the content related to your tone, as mentioned above.

Images and media - there is only one image attached to the article, which makes sense again because the article is so short. I'm not sure if there are images that would strengthen the article, so I guess that's up to you.

Overall impressions - your addition definitely improves the article! It contextualizes an important piece of the discussion on philosopher kings. I think there could be more to talk about in regard to Plato's republic – Socrates' idea for his perfect republic sounds similar to some versions of epistocracies that you reference. Emma Adriana (talk)

Braeylnn2000, I don't know if I posted the peer review in the correct spot, so I'm being extra thorough and adding this more substantive review here on your talk page.