I happened upon this article because I was looking for an interesting Malthus piece, but I came back disappointed. "The Cosmetic Surgeon" has a mild case of almost everything that could be wrong with an article. A few of these flaws make sense in the context of a 2018 article, but it's still far from adequate.
Let's run over the list. Shoddy tone and phrasing? It's here. For starters, we have an RPC being referred to with human pronouns. Important details are placed earlier than they become relevant and in a footnote. There are overcomplicated and unnecessary sub-designations, and at least one instance of misplaced capitalization and missing spaces each. I don't like to nitpick, but these are issues that should be fixed in a single proofread.
Also, unrealistic containment. I disapprove of when authors go out of their way to make sad living conditions, but you can still take it too far in the other direction. I really don't care if this guy has the coziest living situation possible just so he'll be a little more willing to cooperate. Especially how he gets to go out in public three times a week for no particular reason. (Also, don't cross out an entire paragraph of the ConProts to correct a single word. That's some more shoddy writing for ya.)
There's an invocation of the always-cheap "all attempts at watching or recording this thing fail" card, which is never fun. Then there's an unnecessary discovery log.
The experiments all just feel like the same song and dance ad nauseam, and the CSD abuse is still not cool. The third log lands somewhere between being mildly amusing and being obnoxious lolAuthority for me, and I'm not really sure what to think of it. The fourth is odd, because I guess it's bad when Malthus creates genetically augmented super soldiers but it's alright when the Authority does it?
Both incidents are banal and add almost nothing, and the note at the end is illogical; an object class shouldn't change just because the object has breached containment.
Even as a reader who is generally willing to put up with proofreading and logical errors to enjoy an article, this one left me very disappointed. 1/5
(edit: corrected a word to a slightly more correct word)