User:Santanavictianny/sandbox

Peer Review and my responses

Lead
The lead has been updated, including some edits to grammatical and wording issues, and a substantial amount of work has been added in a paragraph at the bottom. However, it seems like this information would merit its own section rather than remaining with the lead. -I agree I am going to separate the lead, I actually forgot there had to be a separate lead.

Content
The content is relative and informative for the topic. The resources are from 2007 and 2014, I think the 2014 is current enough but 2007 might be a little older. I don't know how research in philosophy is measured in terms of how current something is considered, but in English studies something from 2007 would be considered current enough. If this is the same for philosophy I wouldn't worry about it. - yes it is the same as English studies in a way so thank you

Tone & Balance
The writing remains neutral and doesn't seem to demonstrate a desire to sway the reader. The content contributes to an understanding of the moral complexity of the topic without sharing what the author believes to be more morally evil. - thank you I tried to remain neutral

Sources & References
I already spoke on the dates of the references, but the information added also accurately reflects the sources. There doesn't appear to be a lot of diversity in the sources but there are still only two, so I'm sure you'd be able to find an additional source by someone who is part of an under represented group. - I see your point but there are not a lot of neutral sources that go on the topic which is why I stuck with those two. I will keep it in mind to try to find another source

Organization
I do think the large paragraph added at the end should be a separate section, and then the section outline could be added beneath the lead. Additionally, there are some grammatical errors and sentence fragments. For example, "But murder is morally evil for many peoples point of views, where an accidental death is not." could be changed to begin with, "Despite this," or something similar. The first sentence might be made more clear by adding a comma between the words "death" and "preventing," and other minor things throughout the paragraph. I think some minor edits would make the writing a little clearer and easier for readers to understand. I agree I separated the last paragraph and named the heading Morally evil POV. I also fixed those grammatical errors and a couple other ones I also noticed. and I also added little to the lead to put information from the other section

Final Notes
The study you've added is really interesting and I think does a lot to support an understanding of the topic, and I think the edits I mentioned earlier may help highlight its significance. You've done a substantial amount of work and, as a reader, I feel that I have a decent start to understanding the topic which I did not understand before. So, mission accomplished!

User:Santanavictianny/Evaluate an Article

User:Santanavictianny/Moral evil/Bibliography.

Artcile(edits made) - Moral evil

Expansion of Moral Evil -

A philosopher named Christopher McMahon had a project theory regarding moral evil which was questioning the idea that although murder is considered worse for people than an accidental death preventing both deaths would be of equal value. But murder is morally evil for many peoples point of views, where an accidental death is not. He uses examples to demonstrate a violations of moral evil and harm related to first impressions. The fact that the Holocaust is seen much morally worse than the epidemic of Spanish influenza but the Holocaust had triple less deaths than the Spanish Influenza. More people died in the Spanish Influenza but since the Holocaust was seen as more gruesome it is considered morally evil in peoples point of views.