User talk:Kcarter49/sandbox

Article Evaluation Everything mentioned in the article is relevant to the topic. However, the section discussing hypo-descent, could be better worked into the article rather than just being inserted in its own section after the "one-drop rule." The article could mention more about the initial research on multiracial development rather than just stating modern research and theories. The article should provide more history and background information. The article is definitely neutral with different viewpoints, but it could mention more in the background category. As for the citations, all of the sources with links that I clicked worked and led to professional and reliable websites such as the US National Library of Medicine. KendallKcarter49 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Eli Flores
Your addition to the article is very well placed and informative and adds empirical data where they may be lacking at times. Very good, and very comprehensive. Especially enjoy the location statistics to illustrate the differences based on social setting. Perhaps a study on Los Angeles alone is a bit too small-scope off for such an article such as this, and the only other suggestion i have is to consider finding more up to date sources if any. EliFlo27 (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review: Chidera Obiwuma
Your addition is very well articulated and presented. I think that you did a great job in presenting the data and providing reasons for why the data is probably arranged in the way that it is. A piece of advice I would like to offer in tweaking your data presentation is to present it in a way that makes it less likely for a reader to get lost in all the numbers. I am not sure if this is over extending the research but I thought it might be a good reason to also look in to why these kinds of marriages are on the high especially with social issues like social stigmas and fetishization.