User talk:Winklec3

Welcome!
Hello, Winklec3, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Brianda and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Apatheia Peer Review
Kcub27 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link to the page of my peer review of your Apatheia article sandbox: User:Winklec3/Apatheia/Kcub27 Peer Review

Down below is also the contents of my peer review:

The Lead Section:


 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Yes
 * I like how the lead opens up discussion for changes in the use and definition of the word throughout history, without blatantly stating the information and therefore becoming redundant
 * I like how you added more context for how the word has changed in meaning for the modern English use of the word, the original left out why it has a negative connotation


 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * Yes
 * I like how the lead primarily focusses on the original definition/ use of the word
 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * No, no, no
 * I like how the lead provides the original definition/ use as well as hints at how it has changed throughout history
 * Could you add a line or two giving insight to some of the other languages or groups in history who have used the word and/ or changed the definition/ use of the word, such as the Christians?

Clarity of Article Structure:


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * Yes
 * I like how the article starts off with the original definition/ use and then discusses the history and therefore change of the definition/ use of the word throughout history
 * I like the information you added for the Christian use of the word
 * Could you add section titles, such as "Lead" or "Definition" and "History of Apatheia" or just "History" to make the content more definable and spaced out?

Coverage Balance:


 * 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?
 * Yes, no, no
 * I like how the lead is brief and that the history section is in depth and broken into significant times/ groups in history
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * Yes
 * The topic of the article has little reason for debate or in need of multiple viewpoints, and therefore the use of the current sources has been sufficient
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * No
 * Seeing as the article is about a word/ term, little debate can be centered around it other than its place of origin, and I like how the article mentions both the origin and changes in definition/ use throughout history

Content Neutrality:


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No
 * The content is neutral
 * 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."
 * No
 * There is no use of un-neutral phrases
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * No
 * There are no claims on the behalf of unnamed groups or people
 * 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
 * There is a balance of varying viewpoints and aspects of the topic

Sources:


 * 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?
 * Yes
 * I like how you added an additional reliable source for your addition of information regarding the definition/ use of the word by Christians
 * 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.
 * Yes
 * Although there are limited sources, the article requires few sources to sufficiently describe the article's topic
 * Although there are limited sources, the article's topic doesn't invite much discussion for debate or varying viewpoints for there to be a discrepancy in viewpoints
 * 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!
 * Yes
 * Could you find a source(s) for the information stated in the last paragraph of the article?

Kcub27 (talk) 11:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Winklec3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Winklec3/Apatheia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Apatheia

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

 * Intro:
 * Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes! I liked the intro and that you elaborated on the negative connotations. Perhaps add another adjective and remove etc? The language is neutral in the intro and I think that your additions were good.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes.
 * Does it give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, no, no.


 * Article Structure:
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The paragraphs flow in a way that makes sense, but I wonder if you could split everything up into an intro and then a body paragraph or two? I wonder what pictures you could put in your article. maybe a picture of Seneca?
 * Coverage Balance:
 * 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? Yes, no, and no. However, it might be helpful to split your article up into different sections.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes and no. However, I wonder if there are more literature you can cite throughout the article?
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No it did not.
 * Content Neutrality:
 * 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? In the paragraph "the term was later adopted..." I wonder if there is a more neutral way to say "better energy". Overall your additions to the article were good and your language was neutral! There are just a few places where your language could be more neutral.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? No.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? No.
 * Sources:
 * 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? I noticed that you do not have that many references on your page currently or citations in the content. The one reference you do have seems like a good source, but are there others you could add?
 * 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. Yes, but I wonder if you can find another source to spread out the references a bit.
 * 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! It just seems as though you need to go through and add more sources.

Coolguy500 (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)