User:Printy13/Denotation/Emma Adriana Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Printy13

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Printy13/Denotation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Denotation

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: Lead has been updated from the original article. This lead is much more in-depth compared to the current article lead, and I get a great sense of what denotation is from the draft. The first sentence tells me immediately what denotation is, and it properly addresses the sections of the article. I have a few suggestions to make the lead a bit more fluid. In the lead sentence, I would eliminate "and includes every single thing that the meaning could refer to." I think you sum up that notion in your second sentence. Also, just a grammar note int he second sentence – change "contain" to "contained".

Content: All content is relevant, up to date, and the additions of meaning and reference to denotation are awesome. This article does not deal with an equity gap. Just take a peek at your first sentence on "Denotation and Meaning" – instead of saying "Frege started to write," just say "Frege wrote," seeing as Frege did indeed write and finish works in this field. Also, I would add a little bit about Wittgenstein's work in philosophy of language. He was incredibly influential in this field. "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" (Tractatus) would be a good line from Tractatus to mention. I think it's Wittgenstein's most accessible/colloquial idea.

Tone and Balance: All content added is neutral, with no biased or persuasive language. In terms of balance, I would maybe add one or two more sentences to your section on Denotation and Meaning. You mention that Frege and Herbst write on the distinctions between denotation and meaning; I think it would help readers if you fleshed out what those distinctions are. For example, perhaps defining what a "member set" is would help readers grasp this content.

Sources and References: Every source is current except for the John R. Searle source (1969), but I think using this source is fine as philosophy of language really picked up some steam in the mid-late 20th century. Im wondering how you were able to use information from Peter Stockwell's Language and Linguistics: Key concepts. I tried to access an online copy but was unable to get ahold of anything, and I noticed that the physical copy at Ualbany is out on a loan – Im guessing you checked it out! I checked out the other links and it seems you can get easy downloadable copies of these sources online. All sources appear relevant and relate to the work cited in the article.

Organization: The organization in your draft makes sense. I think I picked up the few grammar/sentence flow issues mentioned above. No glaring issues other than that! I think however you wish to put your new heading of "Denotation, Meaning, and Reference" will be fine so long as it's before the header "In other fields."

Images and Media: There are no images in the current article, or in the draft. However, I see the reason for this. I don't quite know what an image of denotation would look like. Perhaps you could add one image of Frege, or Russell, seeing as you mention them in your edits. These figures, especially Russell, were considered the founding fathers of philosophy of language, and an image might help strengthen the overall article. However, I don't think this article requires too much imagery, and if you don't end up adding an image, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Overall Impressions: The article has definitely been improved by your edits! Your expansion of the lead is great, and the header and content you added is essential! Certainly consider expanding on the philosophers who have worked in the field of language and denotation. I look forward to seeing your final edits! Emma Adriana (talk)

Response to Peer Review

Thank you for reviewing my draft Emma! I really appreciate it.

Delete “and includes every single thing that the meaning could refer to”.

This clause was originally added as an important part of the definition of denotation, but I agree that this idea is summed up in the following sentence. So, I will be editing this part.

Grammar correction- change “contain” to “contained”

I will make this grammar correction.

In “Denotation and Meaning” section, change “Frege started to write” to “Frege wrote”.

By saying “Frege started to right”, I was trying to establish that Frege began the conversation about distinctions between denotation and meaning. I see how this is a weird way to word this, so I’ll edit it to make it clearer.

Add content related to Wittgenstein’s theory of philosophy, specifically “The limits of my language means the limits of my world.”

I agree that Wittgenstein’s theory of philosophy is relevant to philosophy of language, but his work is not specifically relevant to denotation. I think that adding content related to his work may distract from the article as a whole.

Add more sentences to “Denotation and Meaning” section, fleshing out distinctions between denotation and meaning as written by Frege and Herbst.

I thought that I already included what Frege and Herbst wrote on the subject, but I’m definitely going to look at this section in more depth to see if I can make it clearer.

Define member set.

The idea of a set is defined in the lead within the definition of denotation, but I’ll look into re-wording this to make sure the definition is clear.

Position “Denotation, Meaning, and Reference” section before “In other fields” section

I actually mentioned in the Talk page that I want to delete the “In other fields” section of the actual article. So, the “Denotation, Meaning, and Reference” section will be placed as it is in the sandbox.

Maybe add a picture of Frege or Russell.

Yea, I’m also not sure if a picture would add anything to the article. I look for pictures related to denotation, and if I can't find any, I’ll see if I should add one of Frege or Russell. Printy13 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)