Whitneygeorge

Whitneygeorge, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Whitneygeorge! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Peer edit?

lookin good! I can scan through your page for general typos if you want lol idk how to really do peer editing but apparently we are suppose to

Yes! I'm in the process of editing the lead, but please do read the content/summary and let me know how it is Whitneygeorge (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Your topic looked really interesting so I'm also going to peer review it for the SCS class. Let me know if there is anything you want me to read for specifically. --limulus120 04:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara.roeder (talk • contribs)

Peer Review from Clara

As far as I can tell you've moved your work to the Wikipedia article page (it looks so much better than when you started!). My comments will be on that page and not the one in your sandbox

I made a few edits on the article page. I split the second-to-last sentence of the introduction into two to make it easier to read, and deleted "extremely" in the last sentence to make it sound more encyclopedic.

In the Preface section: I find this sentence confusing --> "Combe aims to use Phrenology to develop a concept of the relationship between human nature and the external world, and a moral philosophy." Is it a relationship between human nature and moral philosophy? Is he trying to develop a moral philosophy?

For Chapter II, I would make the discussion of each section a new paragraph. I think that would help with the clarity of the article. It might make it look to choppy, but test it out!

I think your summaries are good, but you have more of the tone of an analytical essay throughout that part, whereas we need an "encyclopedic" tone. This especially comes through in the conclusion, which sounds like the conclusion to an analytical essay. I don't know exactly how to shift the tone, but it would be something to keep in mind as you are making final edits. --limulus120 20:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clara.roeder (talk • contribs)