User:HirokiOsada/Legitimation Crisis (book)/Diegosalazarguerra Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HirokiOsada


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * There's no draft. Hiroki edited directly from the article page.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Legitimation Crisis (book)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hey Hiroki! i hope you are doing well. Before reviewing your article, I'm going to recommend you that the next time you work on your article, you may consider working first in the "sandbox draft". It is easier and more organized to work from there and then to publish and move your edits (contributions) in the article. Also, that way, the person who is reviewing your article can know exactly what changes you've made.

It seems that we are all trying to understand how to work more efficiently in this platform haha.

Good luck with your article! :)

Lead:


 * The lead has the basic information of the book, which is what I expected to read.
 * I had some trouble understanding the last two sentences of the lead. Maybe you can edit them and provide the reader more clarity. (English is my second language)
 * You can consider adding the main thesis or argument that Habermas address in the book.

Content:


 * Maybe you can explain more about the subsystems within social systems (first section)
 * As a reader, I think it is very useful when the main thesis is presented followed by the arguments that sustain that particular thesis.
 * Consider adding a "criticism" section.

Tone and balance:


 * Neutral tone
 * The article does not seem to defend Habermas' ideas, which is good. Still, given that you've added the "influence" section, you can also consider adding some critiques.
 * Habermas has a complicated writing style (at least for me, haha). Maybe you can take his ideas and explain them in simpler terms. I know this may be hard to achieve, given that the topic of the book is hard and very technical.

Sources and References:


 * Understandable that almost all your ideas come from the primary source (the book)
 * To complement and to have more sources, maybe you can consider adding a "criticism" section.

Organization:


 * Follows a logical and coherent structure
 * In the Crisis Tendencies in Advanced Capitalism section, maybe you can add subheadings dividing the tendencies you are explaining.