User:HarryJL/19th century philosophy/Braelynn2000 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HarryJL


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:HarryJL/19th century philosophy - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 19th-century philosophy - Wikipedia

Lead
Since you have not edited the lead section at all, I have no comments for you regarding this.

Content
I think the additions you made to the section on utilitarianism in this article are necessary ones. Utilitarianism certainly deserves more than just one line but I can tell it's difficult to keep oneself from adding even more content; further substantial content should likely be reserved for the utilitarianism article itself. Your addition I think is a good balance, not too much, not too little. But I might suggest adding a little more to help the readers understanding of the subject. Specifically, you only mention how utilitarianism is about maximizing happiness but I think equally as important for the theory is its emphasis on the minimization of harm; I think it might be beneficial to include this as well. I'm also wondering if it might be helpful to add a sentence contrasting Bentham's view of utilitarianism with Mill's but this might be too much. Additionally, you do mention how utilitarianism is still a popular contemporary theory, it might be worth referencing some popular contemporary utilitarians too like Peter Singer or J.J.C. Smart and including links to their articles. These are the only suggestions I really have for you, like I said, you definitely don't want to add too much, but perhaps a little more couldn't hurt.

Tone and Balance
I think you certainly take on a neutral tone, you're simply presenting the concept of utilitarianism and although you admit it's still a popular and influential view, this is simply a fact; I see no blatant favoritism here.

Sources and References
So far you only have one source and it seems like that's really all you need for this specific section of the article since you are trying to avoid adding too much. The source seems quite solid to me and likely contains plenty of good information on the topic.

Organization
I see no real organizational errors, I think the section is well structured and easy to understand. It flows nicely.

Images and Media
I don't think any images are necessary, it's not like one can take a picture of utilitarianism.

Overall Impressions
I think what you have added so far to the 19th Century philosophy article is a good addition, though I think my suggestions on content might help improve it. There are other philosophical ideas discussed in the article like social darwinism, british idealism, and pragmatism, and these sections could also use some touching up. So, I think you're next move going forward in editing this article should be to make additions to these sections as well, in the same kind of way you contributed to the section on utilitarianism. Overall, your contribution may seem small but it is valuable and I think it significantly improves the article.