User talk:Sheneilriley4
| This user is a student editor in University_at_Albany,_SUNY/Information_Literacy_in_the_Humanities_and_Arts_(8W2) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Sheneilriley4, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Peer Feedback
[edit]Your whole article is fairly neutral and you also bring in the lead all in well, everything I feel is well from the structure as well as how balanced it is. The only thing that I was suggest is that you use a source or something to tie all of the information in all in all the part that you want to edit is fairly short so there is not much I can add to help you. But to tie in how you can use more sources is when you talk about sociologist and philosophers you can add in facts or sources backing up both and what exactly they say and why they feel that way or what exemplifies that way of thinking about obligation. Great piece though good article.--JTheGoat (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review by Dylan Moran
[edit]The writing about Obligation and what it means has a good structure, separating the different sections. The lead gives a good brief idea of what obligations are and how they are seen in society. In comparison to the original article, the writer could make his lead section of the article longer to try to help the reader understand better. The order of the writing is balanced in a good way that separates the summary with the more in depth explanation and the alternate views of obligation. The writing is somewhat short, however the writer does well in keeping the different sections of the writing short enough to not be and overflow of information and also long enough to where it can be understood. The writer does a good job staying neutral in all of these and giving different definitions of obligations based on different contexts later in the writing. The information is reliable because the sources used included David Owens, Professor of Philosophy at Kings College and Albert Ogien, a French philosopher.
--Dylanmoran2 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]The lead accurately reflects the first part of the article. It is quick and concise, but it excludes the rest of the article. The sections are well organized and clearly understandable. I like how it shifts from defining obligation and stating aspects of it, to different points of view on it. The author did a good job balancing the definitions and aspects of obligation and morality to the different viewpoints that socialists and philosophers have on obligations one imposes on oneself. The author does a great job of leaving their opinions and viewpoints out of the article. They don’t use non neutral phrases that demonstrate any sort of bias in the article and it does not focus on any more positive or negative information regarding the subject. The author does a good job of including as many facts and details from their sources as possible and doesn’t leave much out.--Jsmarroquin (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review by Lyle Sohail
[edit]Overall, this article provides a great foundation upon which the stub can be lengthened! The author endeavors to be very clear about every point they make, which I appreciated. For example, their wording is not dense like the scholarly sources they cited from when they explained, "Obligation exists when there is a choice to do what is morally good..." Their sentence structure is also varied, which improved the flow of the article. Another section I enjoyed, and may include in my own article, is the component which compares two commonly held interpretations of the word "Obligation". On the inverse, I'm not sure that providing the sociological definition of obligation on the philosophy page provides a meaningful insight into the word, and I felt that more explanation was needed to justify the inclusion of that section. I would definitely suggest that the author go through and close read their work, as there are many minor spelling errors within the Sandbox version they intend to post. Furthermore, the author has a limited number of citations, which could be improved by doing more research. To build off my last comment, I also believe there needs to be more content within the page to give a substantive description of Obligation in Philosophy, and thereby prove it's relevance to the general Wikipedia audience.
The lead of the main article has benefited from the author's additions, but I feel as though more revision is needed to tighten the content contained within it. Right now the lead seems to contain too much information regarding examples and content, which could likely be shifted to another section and elaborated upon. Moving throughout the content of the article, the author could do some work in restructuring the article to improve the flow of the overall page. There are several small errors on the live Wikipedia page regarding how the author used citations, and that's just a matter of close reading and revising their piece carefully. The content itself is up to date, based on their links, and all of the links seem to be active and lead to scholarly articles.
Throughout the article, the author maintains a very neutral and informative tone, and they provide very unbiased information. No viewpoints feel overvalued or undervalued, and the information provided seems to be a good balance of necessary, fundamental info, and helpful supplemental detail. It's easy to see where the author derived the information they did from their sources as well, which furthers my assertion that they provided a balanced view of the scholarly literature regarding obligations.
Overall, the article has benefited from the contributions the author has made, and with additional work and editorial care, the article is sure to flourish. Ly-So99 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
1. "I'm not sure that providing the sociological definition of obligation on the philosophy page provides a meaningful insight into the word," -I will add sources and elaborate on the section about obligation in philosophy, I know that section of the article could use more attention. This will help the reader decipher what definition of obligation they are more inclined to accepting. 2. "I would definitely suggest that the author go through and close read their work, as there are many minor spelling errors within the Sandbox version they intend to post." - I will definitely do so, thank you. 3. "The author has a limited number of citations" I will add more sources. 4. "I feel as though more revision is needed to tighten the content contained within it." - I will try to take information out of the lead and expand upon it in the article. Thank you for your praise and critique, I appreciate it.Sheneilriley4 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)