User talk:Danimo2021/Contraceptive trials in Puerto Rico

Peer Review Comment by: Caroline Byron

This was a very nicely organized and put together article. The overall status of this article is very close to being complete. Your lead needs one to two more sentences that connect with the lower portion of your article. This lead was nicely concised, but seemed lacking as it did not mention the last three sections of your article, and ended somewhat abruptly. I like how you took the time to concise lots of sections of the article, by rewording and filling in vague gaps. I would recommend adding to the timeline of Enovid and dosage section as they are the two that seem the least supported. I recommended above perhaps a timeline graphic of Enovid as a more visual way for readers to comprehend the history and information. I would also suggest adding more links in the article, as there are spaces that could use more information, such as in the ethics and controversy paragraph where there aren't any links. Additionally, there was some biased language in this paragraph where you used wording such as “Unfortunately” which is not a huge issue, but if I’m being nit picky this language seems to show a stance. I would recommend removing this. Lastly, I would add a more specific caption for your image of Margret Sanger, such as a date or background. I would also add an image highlighting the oppressed women in Puerto Rico. It feels as if they are being overlooked if a white woman has a picture, but they do not. I wouldn’t take away Sanger’s picture as she was a crucial woman in this fight, I would just add more images of the women being tested on or affected by. Overall, a very nice article. The overall status of this article is: c class (room for improvement- intermediate level) (57 completeness score). Byroncaroline (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review Comment by: Angel Sosa

Your sandbox draft makes a lot of improvements to the original article. The article, as I saw from the talk page, is written in an argumentative essay style and requires additional verified secondary sources. Additionally, the article suffered from a lack of organization and clarity, with major figures such as Dr. John Rock and Gregory Pincus being particularly difficult to locate easily within the article. You do a great job of tidying up the organization, adding clear and bolded headers, and adding additional sources and citations. The addition of hyperlinks in the sandbox draft does a good job of making the article more comprehensive and providing more places for users to explore related topics. I would suggest adding more to the ‘Timeline of Enovid” and “Dosage” section as that seems to be one of the parts that needs the most development. Also, additional materials (pictures, paragraph, etc) representing the Puerto Rican women who participated in this study would go a long way to showing the multiple sides and viewpoints of this topic. Overall, some very good work on this article! (Angel.e.sosa (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC))