User:Benberg11/Lockean proviso/Owenpayne2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Benber11's edit to Lockean proviso


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Benberg11/Lockean proviso
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Lockean proviso

Content
The actual content of the draft is applicable to the article, criticisms are notable and worthwhile in documenting the philosophical concept of Lockean proviso.

I'm not familiar with the the concept, so I'm not sure what can be added, but seeing as it seems to be a popular concept there must be other philosophers and thinkers who have documented criticism of Lockean Proviso.

Specifically, the last sentence in which you mention the lifeguard example should really be synthesized into direct information instead of an analogy. That kind of example can prove confusing for non-English speakers, and analogy's can be too vague to add clear and concise information to the conversation.

This seems like a good start to your edit, definitely should be expanded. Perhaps some criticism that is more constructive or in agreement with Lockean Proviso, since you've already provided some examples of thinkers who aren't in agreement with it.

Tone and Balance
A neutral tone is maintained throughout the work so far.

Being that this section is based on criticism, the overrepresentation of critiques of Lockean proviso is likely necessary.

No argument or persuasions being made, which is good.

Overall, the tone and balance is maintained at a neutral point quite well. My biggest nit-pick is with how you introduce ideas. Instead of opening a sentence with "Philosopher Jon Mandle points out in "Problems in Value Theory: An Introduction to Contemporary Debates" [...]", just state what Jon Mandle says, without quoting him directly. Work on synthesizing the established information that you currently have, rewording and restructuring ideas into something more comprehensible without wording it as the original did. Generally, try and avoid direct quotations when possible.

Sources and References
You need to create a proper citation for every quotation you've used. Anytime you used a direct quotation, you need to use a proper footnote and citation.

The in-text citations you've used are fine for drafting purposes, but when approaching finalizing this everything should follow Wikipedia's citation styles.

Increased diversification of sources is absolutely necessary, especially since you're covering criticisms. The use of only one source for citing critiques may lead to some unintentional bias or an unbalanced examination, ultimately decreasing the quality of the edit.

The one citation's link works well.

There are absolutely additional resources available to you, searching "Lockean proviso" + "criticism" in the University at Albany library database resulted in numerous hits.

Generally, the lack of diversity in your sources is harming to your edit, this singular POV through one cited author can be viewed as weak.

Overall Impressions
This is a good start, and a good draft. Before writing and further I would look to revise some writing into the more matter of fact, neutral, and tertiary manner that Wikipedia asks. I'd also spend a bit of time researching a more diverse set of sources.