User:HirokiOsada/Legitimation Crisis (book)/American Lautaro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HirokiOsada is editing an article called Legitimation Crisis, which I am reviewing.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Legitimation Crisis (book)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
I like the lead of the article right now. I think it is clear and explains what the book is about well. I particularly appreciated the very short summary of the key concepts in the book in the lead, as it situated me and made me feel like I already learned something right from the start, as well as giving me some foundation for what came later. I will say, there are some details that I'm not sure are entirely necessary, like the original title in German or the original publisher. Up to you whether to keep them or not, just a thought. Additionally, I think it could be useful to mention the impact of the book in the lead? I just think it could be interesting and highlight its importance if I could see how this changed how people think or affected thought since then.

I really liked the first part of the crisis section. It was super clear and even though I haven't read Habermas (and I'm sure the reading is terribly complicated), I felt like I came away with a good idea of what Habermas' idea of crisis is, which also seemed reasonable. However, I had a bit of trouble following after "Habermas views the difference between the social systems and natures...". I don't know why, I think I just found this a bit hard to follow so maybe a slight re-write would be good? (Again, I'm sure it's very clear if you've read the book, I am just totally ignorant hahahahaha).

The last section seems interesting and like a good idea.

Overall, while I can't evaluate whether you are accurately portraying the book and if the balance is perfect because I haven't read it, your writing is clear and even though I don't know a lot, I feel like I've come away with a much better understanding. I like your lead and first section, and your second seems like a good and interesting idea. I also like that you incorporated some secondary sources, as it provides a space for criticism of the book. Your tone seems very neutral to me. My only big picture suggestion is that I think it could be helpful to have an "impact" or "legacy" section that looked at what effect the book had, how it pushed back or emboldened different schools of thought at the time or since, and just how it furthered or impacted the field it was in. I just think this could help situate its relevance and help an audience see its relevance. It can be very short if needed.

Good work! I like what you've written, and bar a couple small suggestions, keep it up!