User:Yongfc/Principle of humanity/AkDavis2003 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
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?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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 for 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?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Yongfc

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

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.)

Peer Review “Principle of Humanity”

LEAD

Strengths:

-Clear introduction with a direct mention of its philosophical basis and Richard Grandy’s role in its development

-Good emphasis on highlighting the ethical implications of the principle (empathy and respect in interpreting others’ beliefs and desires)

Improvements:

-Better defining the definition in the lead by splitting the first sentence into two sentences, as this will make it more accessible and readable

- Add the major sections covered in the article, as this would give a reader a clear idea of the article structure (applications in academia and translation)

-Avoid redundancy (ex, “empathy and respect” appears both in the lead and later in the article.

CONTENT

Strengths:

-The article’s content covers diverse and relevant applications of the “Principle of Humanity,” including its impact on academic ethics and translation practices.

Improvements:

-Expand interdisciplinary applications. Adding examples from other fields, such as social and legal contexts, can help you better cover academic and translation contexts and help illustrate the principle’s broader applicability.

-Expand the “pragmatic constraint” section to explain better how the principal fosters meaningful and accurate interpretations.

-Possibly add a brief note on equality gaps to help foster understanding across cultural or social divides.

TONE AND BALANCE

Strengths:

-The majority of the article maintains an objective, encyclopedic tone

-Refrains from overly subjective or persuasive language

Improvements:

-Rephrase specific sentences to avoid prescriptive language and help maintain neutral language. (For example, instead of saying, “fostering an environment that prioritizes these values can significantly enhance research integrity,” consider, “An environment that emphasizes empathy and respect may contribute to improved research integrity” or something along those lines.

-Add different perspectives from other disciplines (e.g., law and social sciences) to help create a more balanced interdisciplinary view of the principle.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Strengths:

-Includes a good start of credible academic sources.

Improvements:

-Ensure that sources are directly cited in the text where specific claims are made

-Find more academic sources, as Wikipedia’s guideline believes that this topic may not meet its notability guideline because of a lack of reliable secondary sources.

-Consider adding more sources to improve the reliability of the Fitzgerald reference in the “Pragmatic Constraints.”

ORGANIZATION

Strengths:

-The article is organized into logical sections

-The organization of the article allows the reader to follow a clear and structured reading

Improvements:

-Add subheadings for clarity. (ex, “Ethics in Academia,” “Translation Constraints”)

-Some sentences throughout the article are lengthy and could be more concise. (ex, “underscores the necessity of understanding the specific ethical contexts in which the Principle of Humanity must be applied” could be rephrased to be more direct

.

MEDIA AND IMAGES

Improvements:

-Consider adding a diagram or visual showing how the principle of humanity applies across different fields (e.g., ethics, translation, linguistics). Adding a diagram or visual could enhance the reader’s understanding.

- If you do decide to add images or visuals, make sure it is well captioned to explain it’s relevance to the article

RESPOND

Hi!

Your advice on adding the main sections of the article is very practical. I have added the following at the end of the introduction: "This article will delve into the specific manifestations, challenges, and far-reaching significance of the Principle of Humanity in various important fields such as criminal law, academic research, and translation practice. It will also analyze relevant cases to help readers better understand the multifaceted and complex nature of this principle." This way, readers can have a clear understanding of the framework of the article from the very beginning.