User:ArcheoAguila/Practice theory/JamesZD online 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.

Whose work are you reviewing?ArcheoAguila

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:ArcheoAguila/Practice theory

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Practice theory

It looks like you have a great start here! Some reorganization would be helpful, and probably a little expansion on a few key ideas.

Lead:

The Lead section overall looks good, but some clarification on the sentence "These underlying, deeply embedded structures govern all human societies." would be useful. Is that your assertion, the structuralist assertion, or the practice theory assertion?

Content:

History and Premise

In the Lead it says that Practice theory was developed as a reaction to the Structuralist school. It would be good to expand on that in the "History" part of this section, before diving directly in to Pierre Bourdieu's work. Right now it looks like Pierre Bourdieu is the beginning and the end of practice theory.

It might also be good to break the "Premise" section out into a different paragraph from the "History." I'm imagining somewhere around "Bourdieu's theory of practice sets up..." This sets it up so you (or others) could easily add to both the History and the Premise sections and guides the reader who wants to learn about the history of practice theory to a different place than the one who wants to read about what Practice theory is.

Habitus is fundamental enough it probably deserves a section heading all its own to describe what it is (linking to Habitus (sociology)) and how it relates to practice theory specifically

I wonder if listing key terms is the best way to convey information about these terms. It leaves me wondering how these terms are put together in practice theory. (which might be addressed by expanding the "Premise" section?).

I'm also curious about why you made some of the changes you made from the original article. For example, you removed competencies, intellect, style of speech, and dress as examples of cultural capital. Are those not instructive examples?

You also use the word "dialectical" without defining it, which may be too jargony for the "encyclopedia style"

Organization:

I think my biggest suggestion would be to try to move away from the organization around individuals, to more of an organization around fields and/or key ideas in practice theory.

For example, since Sherry Ortner, Anthony Giddens, Pierre Bourdieu, etc all have their own pages already, the focus could be about Practice theory in their work, rather than around the individuals themselves. So instead of "Sherry Ortner", the subheading could be "Practice theory in Anthropology", and then talk about the work of Sherry Ortner and other Anthropologists using practice theory. Same with sociologists and Anthony Giddens. This provides a guide to readers looking specifically for Anth/Soc practice theory work, and to future editors about where expansion would be useful (adding more anthropologists/sociologists). This way, both of these sections could also come under the "Influence" header, rather than being set apart.

General editing:

This is just a draft, so no shame in still finishing out the edits, but just make sure you don't lose track of them before transferring it over to the final article. There are a lot of (I still need to link all the references) and "I'm going to add more sentences here" etc. Wikipedia doesn't seem to provide a good way for me to mark them, so I'll just list a few (non-exhaustive list) here

"Algerian culture and its internal laws in the effort to of the conflict." missing word?

Still have (find page #) in Bourdieu section

Missing link to main article in Communities of practice and learning as practice.

Great start and good luck as you round it out for the semester! Let me know if you have any questions or want me to read through it again sometime!