Talk:"All God's Children" Campaign

Comments
Your writing is excellent and flows well but I see a minor flaw immediately when reading through, your page is talking about the book and its title isn't even mention in the first paragraph. Your focus starts on the author and is informative and works as an excellent hook into the article but the transition to talking about the book is sudden and caused me pause a moment to realize that the page wasn't about just the author. I wouldn't rewrite the whole beginning as it is strong and relevant information about the author and her motivations that are so relevant to the book, but I would mention the book in conjunction with Rayna Rapp at the beginning to make the transition from her to the book itself more smooth. that is the only major "problem" I perceived. Your citations frequency also looks quite good and give the article an authoritative feeling. IsaacNordmoe (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Review of HRC article
Your article looks great so far! The sources are well integrated into the article for the most part, but the first paragraph of the "background" section only uses one source. In the same paragraph, it also might be helpful to specify who the "scholars" are that you're referencing.

Overall this looks like a great start. I'm particularly impressed by the neutrality of your language. Keep up the good work!(IWells (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC))

Peer Review Chloewass
To start off with, the amount of information that you have provided in comparison to the original Wikipedia page is astounding! I am thoroughly in aw for the sheer amount of information and sources provided. Bravo!

With the background information when its referring to “her” and “she” I am confused to who is her. Is it Rapp or Mahowald’s thoughts on amniocentesis? I figure it’s regarding Rapp, but when saying according to Mahowald… it can be misunderstood. Is the *** a note for later or a transition? In the background information, it should include Rapp’s her major works and awards mentioned. Also, potentially life altering events that could have led her to this path of research if relevant can be mentioned here.

Research style- I see no problems in this section. Nice work with conveying the information like a textbook along with the vocab words leading to the other Wikipedia articles.

Synopsis- This section is clear to the main points that are being presented in Rapp’s Testing Women, Testing the Fetus without having a biased voice presented. The only thing the book is not presented as Rapp’s book if so, it should also be mentioned in the background information. Having it appear first in section 4 as I continue reading is nice to be clarified, but I think it should be explicit in the beginning if all the information of this page is based on this book of Rapp’s.

Having her awards and reception section is something that is great to be recognized. It is also great that there is a stable link for the J. I. Staley Prize for people to learn about the prize even outside of Wikipedia! I never thought of making a link that was not directed to a Wikipedia page that's awesome. Overall great job with the information, just a bit of clarification points throughout besides that great with the unbiased presentation of information! Chloewass (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2017 (UTC)