User:Starwarsfan6/Ontogeny/KaylaT3210 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Starwarsfan6)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Starwarsfan6/Ontogeny
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ontogeny
 * Ontogeny

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I see that you would like add an introduction. I agree that the addition of an introduction would be helpful! I do believe however that the introduction itself is a bit vague. Everything that you've added for this section is in the beginning paragraph already. I recommend changing the introduction to include more about the history section (how did ontogeny begin?) would be helpful! I think the introduction lacks direction (use it to talk about the beginnings of ontogeny in the science field and the general consensus at the time).

Content:

History section:

I think a bit more of a lead into the history section would be beneficial! For instance, imply immediately that Haeckel was one of the first people to create this theory of ontogeny. Another thing I would recommend is writing the most important points from the summaries. For instance, in the history section, you mention how future embryologist improved up Haeckel's ideas. However, you do not explain how they did so. It would be best to add this information as checking the source it was an IBSN that I could no immediately check! I would also recommend decreasing the addition of people's thoughts. I think it borderlines on interpretation, and it's best to err on the side of caution. Emphasize the accomplishments and perhaps general consensus.

example:

"Though his view of development and evolution wasn't justifiable..." <-- interpretation!

"A seminal 1963 paper by Nikolaas Tinbergen named ontogeny as one of the four primary questions of biology, along with Julian Huxley's three others: causation, survival value and evolution." <-- Good!

Ontogenetic allometry:

I would recommend adding sources to how allometry is summarized in mammals and avian!

Tone and Balance

Great foundation! I think that I have a more well-rounded idea of the history of this. I do think that the section should have more information added however. Some of the claims in this section can be further expanded upon to avoid interpretation by the reader (i.e: "the scientific community wasn't very convinced or interested in his ideas, so he turned to producing more publications"). I also think to give a more neutral feel, the history section should either be about the founding father of ontogeny "Ernst Haeckel", or about the overall history until present about how ontogeny came to be. The section mostly revolves around Haeckel and while playing an important part in the development of this theory, it might feel biased towards him. I would also recommend adding some information about his detractors (it'll give some more diversity to this section and will give a more neutral feel!)

Sources and References

You gained a lot of information from the sources you've found, but I suggest more. A lot of the history section doesn't have a source after the 3rd one.

Organization:

Pretty clearly stated! It was easy to read and flowed from one section to the next. I think a few segue way words would be beneficial especially at the beginning of opening your topic.

Overall Impressions

I think you've added a great amount of information! I do feel more knowledgeable about the history of ontogeny now! I think your additions would be great with a few more references explaining some of your sentences (like the examples I added above!). The largest thing I would recommend is either making the introduction more focused or excluding it. It ultimately might not be needed in the article.

Response: Thanks for the detailed feedback! I agree with the points you made about the introduction and history sections, I think your proposed changes would be beneficial to the article. Also, I didn't add anything about Tinbergen or Huxley, they were already there, and I wanted to incorporate another figure from history besides them. In addition, having more sources would be beneficial, but what I have already added is formatted so big chunks are from the same source, that way I don't have to repeat sources, though I could do that. I was able to find sources with a large amount of useful information so far, but I plan on adding more with the new material.