User talk:Preciousg11/sandbox

Hello Precious i just finished your peer review a little late. I am terribly sorry i have been doing my best to catch up, i hope it helps!

A lot of work and effort all around, you have done very well presenting different positions and aside from a few small mistakes in grammar what you have added in i think is great.! I would recommend however to maybe switch up the positioning of the Positions section. Maybe move it to being after the historical philosophy sections. I think that would improve the flow of the article since it would present first the historical basis for the subject matter in chronological order followed up and concluded by these modern established philosophical positions on the issue that you added. To summarise I think it serves best as a conclusion to the article. Especially considering comments in the talk section that target the historical structure as a bad move, maybe the article would do better to be organized into its schools of thought without the historical chronology but that isnt my call to make, and would probably be a ton of work (that i doubt is necessary for this class) since it would involve practically scrapping the rest of the article.

Also a side note in the talk section of the article someone mentioned concerns of eurocentricity and a lack of information on non western approaches to the problem of universals. I think that could be worth looking into for you as i am sure there is plenty of content to be found.

I would also recommend using some conceptualism if you have the time since it is similar to realism and can tie in nicely with the rest of the article. I am doing my work on Epicureanism and just like their stoics they go against the idea of the platonic forms and theres plenty of writing on Epicurean and stoic ideas on Universalism you could probably find.

Good luck!

Edit: forgot to put the actual review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donpalmtree (talk • contribs) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)