User:Maryannelindemann/Ethics of torture/HarryJL Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Maryanne Lindemann


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Maryannelindemann/Ethics of torture


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ethics of Torture

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.)

Hi Maryanne, thanks for clarifying things how you did in your draft. I noticed a few possible problems with what you added to the History section, as well as your intended addition to the Opponents section.

Firstly, you say "At one point in Israel, it was legal to torture." I think you should specify the actual period of time you are discussing, and condense the following sentences so that you match the tone of the rest of the article and so that it reads better. I also think you could make your points clearer by detailing what you are saying more. You could reword it like: "Between the years of X and Y, it was legal for the Israeli military to torture prisoners under certain circumstances. If the tortured party was proven guilty in a court of law... etc."

In the Opponents section, what you added includes both a deontological argument against and for torture, when the section is specifically about opponents of torture. You may want to remove the deontological argument for torture so that this is not read as an attempt to persuade the reader to agree with torture. I think the Opponents section should outline arguments against torture neutrally, and the Proponents section should outline arguments in favor of torture neutrally. For this reason you may want to put the second part of your addition to the opponents section in the proponents section. You should probably paraphrase this part too. I do not see a strong reason to quote directly.

Your sources are good, and you cited well.