User:ES8592/Principia Ethica/Trossi01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Avadauer123, ES8592, Melodyalvarado, Rrobertrowan


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ES8592/Principia_Ethica?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
LEAD

-First sentence of lead reads "in which the he insists on the indefinability of "good," just need to remove the word "the" in-between which and he.

-additionally reads "provides an exposition of the naturalistic fallacy of some words." Could remove the "some words" part, I feel it makes the sentence semi-confusing to read and could be delved into in a naturalistic fallacy section as opposed to introduced in the lead.

-I cannot get the reference at the end of the lead to open. This may be a my computer issue, but when I try to click the direct link at the end of the lead, it opens me up to the Principa Ethica wikipedia article, and I cannot click on any of the articles in the reference section. Like I said, this may be an issue with my computer but may also be an issue with the draft. The same issue occurs when I try to click the link on the main Wikipedia page, it simply redirects me to the references list and not to a separate source.

-Because of my aforementioned inability to open the references, I cannot tell what the reference at the end of the lead links to and what it supports. I am hoping it is to a website which speaks to the claim that Moore's book was influential yet seen as less influential than his other works. If not, this should be added.

ARTICLE BODY

-may consider updating title to "Summary" as opposed to article body to match the main wikipedia page—it also is generally a better fitting title for the information provided in this section.

-should add citation to why the first question is the most important of the three questions provided

WHAT IS GOOD?

-I think technically it may be right to write ..."definition of the term 'good.'" With the period in the quotation marks.

-Could be a nice place to describe what Moore means when he says something is simple and indefinable after the second sentence. Maybe give the example he uses of the word horse and how such a word is definable by its components until getting to the simplest words that can no longer be defined—perhaps you could even include words that most people would describe as simple without an argument being needed to support the claim

-might consider changing the final sentence to: "These two forms of goodness are different because..." as it could be unclear as to what "They" refers to in the initial sentence

-should consider defining terms from the final sentence such as something having value in itself, what a self-evident intuition is, and what means and duties means. This could greatly help clarify this sentence as I think these terms are perhaps not the most accessible to people who have not studied philosophy.

WHAT THINGS ARE GOOD OR BAD IN THEMSELVES?

-I found the added paragraph in this section to be slightly confusing. Perhaps some ways to clarify this section is through a more direct definition of value of a whole and value of its parts

-Add a citation for "It is often assumed that the value of a whole just consists in the sum of the values of its parts." Is this by specific philosophers, something Moore says in Principa Ethica, or is there a survey of philosophers who say that this is the way the value of a whole should be considered?

-Define what "organic unities" and "organic wholes" mean

-May want to change "But the value on the whole" to "However, the value on the whole"

-may consider changing the sentence "Again we have to depend on our intuitions to determine how the intrinsic value of a whole differs from the sum of the values of its parts." What does the again refer to? is it an earlier sentence? Additionally, may want to stray from using the general "we" and "our" and change it to something like, "Moore believes people must depend on their intuitions..."

WHAT IS GOOD AS A MEANS?

-I currently do not spot any major differences between the article version of this page and the sandbox draft of this page