User:Mnusom/Open-question argument/Melodyalvarado Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Rrobertrowan and @Igetthaloot


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mnusom/Open-question_argument?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Open-question argument
 * Open-question argument

Evaluate the drafted changes
First Section:
 * 1) "Spell out" the difference in a moral property and a natural property (first paragraph)
 * 2) Define ethical naturalism (last paragraph)
 * 3) Define tautology (last sentence of the last paragraph)

Objections/Rejoinders Section


 * 1) Explain the significance of the fallacy of special pleading (begging the question section)
 * 2) Perhaps change/remove "special motivational effects of moral beliefs", can be seen as wordy/confusing for readers
 * 3) Elaborate on "meaningful analysis" section if possible, the paragraph is extremely small compared to other sections or consider reducing it to a sentence/removing it entirely if there is not enough information (possible solution: expanding on the mathematical example by going more in depth)
 * 4) Frege's section is really clear!

Paradox of Analysis Section


 * 1) Maybe name which philosophers claim that Moore is "recreating the paradox of analysis" (first sentence)
 * 2) Change "For Moore, A successful..." to a lowercase "a" (8th sentence)
 * 3) Correctly spell "analytical" (8th sentence)
 * 4) I liked the reference to a=b and 2=2!
 * 5) Last two sentences start with "Therefore", try finding another closing word like "overall"

Solutions to the Paradox of Analysis Section


 * 1) The separation of sections is good!
 * 2) Linguistic solution: example is clear and closing sentence ties everything together
 * 3) Explicit knowledge: "The bounding line is called its circumference and the point, its centre." . - fix citation and quotation spacing