User:Thomasgraziadio/Sexual ethics/Benberg11 Peer Review

Lead:

The lead has been updated to reflect my peers content. He successfully introduces the topic of population control with a small background about China's policy. Perhaps this could be better introduced as it seems a little abrupt. It is not overly detailed and is concise.

Content:

The content of population control is relevant to sexual ethics. The content is up to date. I would say that some of the assertions are not backed up with a link such as the one about China's birth control laws. The content then goes into a sort of summary of sexual ethics. I think this section will be useful and add context and flesh out the present and historical perspectives section.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is definitely neutral. There aren't really any personal opinions or assertions. It is mostly just a presentation of information and a concise summary of philosophers opinions on sexual ethics.

Sources and References:

There were a lot of sources and references which was good. I would recommend adding a source and citation for when you talk about the Chinese birth control laws. This is a claim that seems unsure and should be supported with an academic source.

Organization:

The organization could have been a bit better just because it feels like somewhat of a run on sentence. Only in the sense that you seem to seamlessly transition from topic to topic when it seems like there should be a bit more of a separation.

Images and Media:

No images or media were added.

Overall Impressions:

I think you have done a good job and your edits will help to improve the public health and present and historical perspectives sections of the article. The main critiques I would leave are try and polish the section for present and historical perspectives a bit more. It seems like you go into different topics that aren't that related to quickly. Also there are a few times where you could add some citation to back up claims. I would also try and make your assessments of the philosophers points a little more polished and concise and paraphrase and cite where necessary. Good work so far.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)