User:Stewartjordan625/Objectivity (philosophy)/Bekah01 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Stewartjordan625
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Stewartjordan625/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated by my peer, my peer is discussing adding information into the article itself.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?- the lead is concise, it is short compared to other philosophy pages and could be longer

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- it does not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- there are probably more literature available on the topic
 * Are the sources current?- Two are from 2008 and one is from 2018. They are all decently current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- I am not able to see these sources since they all require purchasing access
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- The three links provided all require log in and they are not open access for the public.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- yes the section is what will be added

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media- They did not


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?- yes the article will be more complete and have a better quality with this addition of a definition of moral relativism, moral objectivism, and the addition of the "critique of moral objectivity" section.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- the definition will help new readers understand the content better and the two other additions will help to give more information on the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?- I think adding visuals would help a lot for a beginner in this topic

Overall evaluation
The information my peer is adding is a very good start. I only say start because I believe that the lead can be updated to include brief sentences to include these additions. Also the expansion of the definition of moral objectivity was very helpful to someone like me who is not very knowledgeable in this topic. If there was anyway to add a chart or images to help the reader see how this is all connected or to even see the type of philosophers who have contributed to this topic and how it has been an ongoing topic throughout the many years.