User:Tdeppong/Charles Davenport/HSCI3423 - Student Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tdeppong


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Tdeppong/Charles Davenport


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Charles Davenport

Evaluate the drafted changes
I've read through both the existing article and the writer's draft and I think a lot of useful information has been added. The lead of the original article has not been changed, but the writer's draft expands appropriately on the lead as it exists already, so I do not think it needs to be altered. Overall, the content that was added seems very appropriate and expands on information not previously covered in the existing article. Specifically, the writer does a good job including more detail into the Early Life section (incorporating the new information with the existing article) and expanding the Career section to include Davenport's impacts near the end of his work life. I also think the writer did a good job in adding a new section focusing on how Davenport's Eugenic ideas influenced his involvement in politics and immigration. This section gives a good insight into another aspect of Davenport's life that was not previously discussed. Each section of the content that discusses a new topic is appropriately separated with headings. The content also includes several links to other Wikipedia pages discussing associated people and ideas. I checked a couple links and they all lead to the correct articles. The draft appears neutral in overall tone, without significant bias towards one viewpoint over another. However, some sentences seem very vague in their claims and are not backed up by sources citing that information. For example, the author wrote "sharing the views of many during this time, those that Davenport considered to be genetically inferior included Black people and Southeastern Europeans". This statement does not explain who the 'many' are, and it may be a good idea to include examples here of other individuals that influenced and/or supported Davenport's beliefs. This statement was also not supported with a citation. The sources do all appear to be academic in nature (there are several University-published journal articles) and include several different authors that reflect varying viewpoints, but they are sparsely used throughout the draft. Many statements are left without sources, making it difficult for the reader to trace where that information came from. I think this is the aspect of the draft that needs the most improvement. Ideally, each statement that introduces new information should have a source supporting it. The citations are listed properly, but a heading labelled References should be added to distinguish the sources as their own section from the rest of the article. In terms of grammar, the article is well written and flow nicely from one idea to the next. I found only one spelling error–"Mandelian" should be changed to "Mendelian". One thing I would consider adding to the draft would be some images, if possible. They can really pull the whole piece together and add something unique!

All in all, this was a very well written draft. It was clear, concise, and divided into the appropriate sections. It adds relevant information not found in the original article. The major points of improvement, I believe, would be to go through and cite each statement that pulls information from a source, fix any grammatical errors, and possibly add some images or media.