User talk:Ewooten/sandbox

Peer Review
I think all of your additions are great, they increase the general specificity of the article and allow the reader to clearly understand Kant's ideas. Generally, I would encourage you to read over the rough draft for small typos. There aren't many; however, they do not allow your article to read smoothly. For example, in your opening paragraph, you have a small typo: " It is first mentioned in Section II of Groundworks of the Metaphysics of Morals, It a type of imperative, which Kant defines as the formula". Your sections under the "Overview" part was also very helpful in increasing the detail in relation to Kant's arguments. I would recommend adding specific quotes under each section, I think this would serve as a form of evidence. This would allow your general analysis to be stronger. Overall, I think you are off to a great start.Mizamor (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC) Mizamor

Peer Review 2
This article is off to a very good start. However, I would suggest that you make a section that include several examples of the hypothetical imperative. This would serve to give the reader a better idea of the term, beyond just what is explained in the overview. In addition, it seems as though you are not using the "Cite" button when writing, which would add a citation number directly behind whatever you are referencing. Because of this, it is unclear what exactly in your article you are referencing. In addition, I would add a little more background information about Kant, to give the readers insight into the credibility of this term and where it originates. Yannasummer (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(Moved this one over here on 4/4 from the article's talk page! Lost and found...)--Jmstew2 (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Excellent work Emmanuel! I think this really improves the depth of the article and I have a much better sense of what a hypothetical imperative is after reading your version than the one that is currently live. I agree with the peer review above -- it needs to be gone over a couple times to try to improve clarity. I suggest reading it through carefully a couple times on your own looking for copyediting mistakes as well as places where you can simplify the phrasing. Then in our meeting we should do this together and it will be good to go! I do think that the original sentence that opened the article was good for its brevity and clarity. Maybe you can retain that phrasing as an opening, and then introduce your longer explanation (a little changed of course) right afterwards, or in a different section? (We can talk about this in our meeting if it's unclear.) --Jmstew2 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)