User:Mmp2818/George Otto Gey/HSCI3423 - Student Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mmp2818


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mmp2818/George Otto Gey


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * George Otto Gey

Evaluate the drafted changes
I've read through both the existing article on George Otto Gey as well as the writer's draft. I think the draft is currently decent, but it could still use a good amount of work/edits. The original article's lead has not been altered to reflect the writer's draft, but the original lead covers the main idea of the article fairly well as is. The content in the draft seems appropriate, however much of it seems to describe information that is already covered in the existing article. Specifically, the writer discusses Gey's personal life, his work with HeLa cells, and the Drum Roller (a machine used in his work with the cancer cell line), but this information is already discussed in the existing article. I think it may be a good idea to consider researching different / additional information regarding Gey's work, potential collaborators, broader societal impacts, etc. that is not previously discussed in the original article. The writer could even consider adding new sections to the article. Such information could make the article more interesting and fill in any gaps regarding Gey's life/work. I also think some statements in the current draft are a bit vague and could use some clarification. For example, the writer mentioned that Gey won two awards, but did not mention what the awards were called or what they were for. Specifying these details could also make the article flow more coherently. Regarding structure, each new topic that is introduced is appropriately partitioned into its own section with a clear and concise subheading. The only suggestion regarding structure that I would make would be to title the section containing the citations with a heading labelled 'References', so that they are clearly sectioned off from the rest of the article's content.

Another suggestion I would make for this draft would be to include links leading to other Wikipedia articles for words/ideas/people of importance. The original article includes some such links (which, after checking a few, appear lead to the correct articles), but several links can be added to the draft as well. For example, several key terms were mentioned in the draft such as the Tissue Culture Laboratory, the John Hopkins Hospital, the John Hopkins University School of Medicine, the John Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Henrietta Lacks (the donor of the HeLa cells), and the Catherine Berkan Judd Award. If any Wikipedia articles currently exist on these terms, the writer can link to them in the draft.

Aside from content and links, the draft appears to be neutral in tone without any significant bias or persuasive rhetoric. One thing that the writer did very well in the draft is improving the article's citations. Almost every sentence in the draft is backed up by a source (unlike the original article). These sources can be added into the article to back up sentences that coincide with the information in the writer's draft. This would greatly increase the article's overall credibility. I checked the sources and they all seem very reliable and academically-based (most are University published journals or books). It is easy to trace where the information in the writer's draft originated from and it would be a good idea to add these citations to the original article. Regarding grammar, the article seems well written and I do not see any major grammatical or spelling errors.

A final suggestion I have would be to consider adding some media, images, etc. to make the article more interesting to the viewer. I don't think this is something major, but it could be an aspect of the article that brings all the information together nicely!

In general, this draft was decently written, sourced very well, and structured clearly. I think some improvements can be made content-wise to introduce new information not previously discussed and some links can be added to connect the article to other Wikipedia topics, but overall it was a good draft!