User:KenDawg123/Playing God (ethics)/KendallDonna Peer Review

General info
Kenzie Donkle (KenDawg123)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Playing God (ethics) - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Playing God (ethics) - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

I have reviewed Kenzie Donkle's revisions and contributions to the article Playing God (ethics) - Wikipedia. I thought her contributions were well research, succinct, and matter-of-factly worded. However, I did have a few suggestions to make the contributions even stronger for Wikipedia users. One sentence talks about "the many critical questions that need to be asked when recognizing the different morality positions." It felt as if these questions and morality positions were to be explicitly stated after they were introduced. They may be talked about later in the contribution, but as a first time reader, it felt somewhat jumbled. In the next sentence, while the writing was evocative, I think that replacing "you" with more general words such as "one" or "people" may serve better for academic writing purposes. Lastly, the underlined ending to the sentence, "'''Many new technological advances, such as the more recent AI or gene modifications, are just a few examples, that feed on the idea of humans "playing God" or arrogantly undertaking power that rightfully belongs to both God and the land." ''' may sound a bit opinionated to, say, an atheist or someone who has strong land ethics leaning toward land degradation. I agree with the statement, but for public forum purposes, perhaps consider a more neutral wording for this sentence.