User talk:Mgpro79/sandbox

Hey, I'm your peer review (philosophy major, if that makes your more and not less comfortable, haha); I'm taking this as an account/explanation of the edits you've made to the main duration (phil) page; I'm seeing three show up in the history of the main article. will post back, just wanted to say hi Kraaj 19:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

My peer review: As a student of philosophy, I was somewhat excited for the chance to indirectly learn some new unexplored facet of it through this project, and Mgpro79 did not disappoint me. Their article, on the philosophical concept of duration, has the bones of a decent article, though I can see why Mgpro79 opted for it, as there is considerable room for improvement. I felt as though the lead did a decent job of setting the stage; I particularly enjoyed the reference and link to the progenitor of Bergson’s line of thinking. That said, I found myself wishing that Zeno had been mentioned in the lead as Kant was, before it turns directly to a section effectively titled ‘Zeno’. More on that section: bringing up Kant makes sense, as it has been alluded to earlier, but I think some elaboration on the ‘why’ of the disagreement between Bergson and Zeno arose in the first place is needed.

Similarly, I think the section titled ‘Images of Duration’ could use a short introduction or explanation of exactly what Bergson is painting, and why; I get what’s going on in this section, but I feel it is less than intelligible for the average reader without any real philosophical grounding. Moving on, I find myself quite interested by the Einstein reference (look at name recognition go), as I’d imagine many potential readers might be. An easy edit may be to draw out and illustrate how the mechanical inadequacies of Spencer’s thinking led him to conversation with Einstein in order to better bridge the transition; again, I feel non-philosophers might appreciate the handholding.

On a positive note, your added content, like citation [14], is relevant, informative, and succinct. I also made a point of checking that the citations actually worked, which, of course, did. On the topic of citations, an easy (and I might argue necessary) missing citation is Zeno’s Foundation of Physics Letters (mentioned in ‘Physics and Bergson’s ideas’ – which should have a capital ‘I’). I think that that’s all I have for the moment, I hope this was both helpful and an adequate peer review. Kraaj 20:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPUAlbany (talk • contribs)