Context: Criticizing

This is a context page that will help readers situate a StudyPlace article, an important part of making peer production fully effective. For the rationale behind this page see Help:New articles.

• Put comments indicating substantive concerns about the context of an article and about the article itself in the comment sections below.
• Click on the link above to go to an article itself.
• Use the contents box below to jump to the section that currently interests you on this page.
• Use the Discussion tab above to go to the talk page to enter concerns and ideas about the way this page works.

Peerhood

This section makes explicit the questions, concerns, resources, and standards that characterize the community of peers to be respected in the collaborative work on the article.

Generative questions

Please complete, revise, deepen.

• Generative question. . . .

Key points

List important points, each concisely stated with brief thoughts about how to present it and why it is important. This list may evolve into an annotated outline as points accumulate and spawn sub-points (You can easily generate an outline from the list by putting number signs at the beginning of points — # for a major point, ## for a sub-point, ### for a sub-sub-point, etc.) Over time, this outline may or may not match the "Contents" box of the article itself, which MediaWiki automatically generates for any article with more than three section headings, but for purposes of commenting on an article it may be helpful for editors to ensure that it does.

1. A point and its importance
   1. A sub-point and its importance
      1. A sub-sub-point and its importance
2. Another point and its importance

Scope and norms

Here the producers of an article name the people and resources that have been significant in influencing its production. Such a list defines a frame of reference indicating substantive attainments, both as present on StudyPlace and as presences in the culture at large, that are in effect the public norms for assessing the work at hand. This frame of reference sets the norms with respect to which those working on an article manage their interactions and those reading an article assess its strengths and weaknesses. The frame of reference should be as extensive as possible, since it will help contributors inform each other of the different backgrounds and special interests that they bring to a common subject. No contributor will have command personally of the whole frame, but the collaboration of many contributors should combine so that their common work meets the scope and standard of its peerhood.

• Citation 1 (Brief indication of its value)
• Citation 2 (Brief indication of its value)

. . .

• Citation n (Brief indication of its value)

Commentary

This section makes public review comments that readers may make with respect to the substantive article and the peerhood for it. In effect, this is the peer-review appropriate for work in a digital commons.

• Extended comments are particularly suitable for critiquing the article as a whole or an important point within it. It should strive to give a fully developed alternative view of the subject, taking into account different weightings of the intellectual context and the world of experience relevant to it.

• Short comments run from a few sentences to several paragraphs. Two types of short comments are particularly useful. One addresses the intellectual context for the article, suggesting or critiquing particular sources as meriting consideration. The other concisely contributes to the context of experience relevant to the article, showing how a significant encounter in the reader's circumstances illuminates or qualifies some point in the article. This second type of comment may prove particularly valuable as part of the context page, helping to keep the ongoing development of ideas well anchored to the seabed of experience.

Extended comments

• You can link an individual commentary on an article here.
  • (Click the [edit] button with the red arrow and follow the instructions to enter a link to your commentary here.)

Short comments

• Enter a short comment to the group commentary below.
  • Click the [edit] button with the blue arrow and scroll down to enter your comments after the last one.
  • The mechanics of entries to talk pages are appropriate in this comment section as well.
  • Whether your short comment is intellectual or experiential, please give it a header (a descriptive phrase with 4 = signs before and after it) and sign it by entering four tildes ~~~~.

Comment header