User talk:Pjzimmerjr/sandbox

Yuri peer review #1
Peer review format: First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? >>> I like the detail you provided in terms of his career. For your lead page, you can mention the fact that he received numerous awards; that way, Wikipedia recognizes him as an important person to cover.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? >>> I was a bit confused about information on his college education. So did he attend both the University Of King's College and Dalhousie University for undergraduate?

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? >>> Perhaps you can expand on his academic work as an individual section (normality, ethical nihilism, terrorism etc). You can also write about others' reception of his books.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! >>> I was thinking of adding biography to my own page.

Lead Ask yourself:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? >>> No. You should create one :)

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? >>> N/A

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? >>> N/A

Structure Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? >>> N/A (You can keep adding heading and sub-heading)

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? >>> N/A

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? >>> Yes You can easily add others' reviews of his work.

Balance/Neutrality

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? >>> No

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? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." >>> No

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. >>> No

Sourcing

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? >>> No You can add his books, others' reviews on them.

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. >>> I'm not sure if we were able to use this professor's page as the only source of information

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! >>> No

Yuri, thank you for the feedback. It was very helpful in my revision process in fleshing out my article! Thanks, Peter Zimmer

Jillyann's Peer Review #2
Peter, this is a great start! Are you working on the whole article or revising the career and education section? I recommend adding to the lead section to summarize some of Troy Jollimore's accomplishments to signify his significance.

You have really clear content and everything is well put together. Your article has the conciseness I hope to achieve. If the goal of your career and education section is to be an overall summary of Jollimore's work, it has come together quite nicely.

However, as a reader, I think there may be a little room for expansion. Like when you state "Jollimore's philosophical writings frequently concern ethical issues connected to personal relationships" and list the subsequent books as examples, I can deduce what those books are about because of the title. But I'm wondering what ethical issues are in "Love's Vision"? or what relationships are discussed in "On Loyalty"? Consider adding a few more words of description, to give the reader more of a flavor/taste of his work--that is, if you intended more than an overview. Looking at your model article, I think it's important to have the reader get a good sense of Troy Jollimore's various works.

The information is neutral and well balanced.

Nice work! Can't wait to see the final article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmugerio (talk • contribs) 05:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Jillyann, thank for the feedback. This definitely helped me go into further detail with "Love's vision" and the ethical issues with relationships. All of this was valuable in my revision process. Thanks, Peter Zimmer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjzimmerjr (talk • contribs) 12:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
This looks great, Peter. One thing: the citations don't look right. They should be citations as in a scholarly article etc. Not merely links to web pages. See the footnotes/cites on this page Did you use the "Cite" button to generate citations? In any case, once you fix these, I think you're ready to roll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profhanley (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)