Talk:Eugenics Record Office

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nothing1296. Peer reviewers: Mmp2818, Abhisheksoni2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I haven't been able to confirm its authenticity, but this article ought to include this logo, if it is indeed genuine: ERO Logo Davidmgoehring (talk) 05:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nikkilopezsuarez, Zn15. Peer reviewers: Acewind88, Lwebb15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi! I am reviewing your article. I think it gives a great overview of the ERO. I am mainly focusing on the methods and controversy sections since those seem to be your major contributions. In the methods section, it would be helpful to include the actual traits they were looking for. You mentioned physical and tempermental properties, but what specific properties? Also you might want to revise some of your sentences. The wording can be confusing at times. For example, "One of the reasons that the majority of the field workers were educated women was due to the lack of professions that were available." could be rewritten as: The majority of the field workers were educated women because there was a limited amount of professions available for women.

In the controversy section, I think you give a good overview again, but it would be helpful to mention some specifics. What did the propaganda look like? Why was some of Laughlin's evidence fraudulent? What specifically did he do to alter the data? Overall, your additions help expand the article and include much needed information. Good job! Lwebb15 (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on article edits
Hi Nikkilopezsuarez, good job on your edits! You definitely provided a lot more background to this topic, and I feel like I've learned a lot from reading it! Overall, I think everything was pretty clear. One suggestion would be just to go through your additions line by line and correct grammar mistakes, since I noticed a few. While they are obviously not as important as the content of the article, I think fixing them would make a big difference as it will help with the flow of the article and reduce disruptiveness. Another suggestion is to provide a deeper explanation of what eugenics is in the 'History' section. Some people might begin reading this article without too much of a background on what eugenics is, so it would be helpful to do this. I also think you could refine the title of the 'Methods' section. I don't think it's descriptive enough, and I started reading the section not really knowing where it would go. Lastly, some areas of the article would benefit from more detail. For example, in the 'Methods' section, you say: "The research collected by these field workers provided much of the information necessary to pass several legislations during the 1920s." What legislations are you talking about? I think adding these kinds of details would emphasize the impact and significance of the Eugenics Record Office. Acewind88 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)