User talk:Ragesoss/Embryo drawings

Peer Review by Eugene for History of Embryo drawings -I like your intro in that you not only present the topic of embryo drawings but draw on the larger social implications his work has had, including the exactness and originality of his work. -I like the way you tie in Haeckel’s drawings to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, and maybe you could expand on this idea more. -I’m not sure what “morphology” is when you say it was a production from the fusion between embryology and anatomy. Maybe a simple definition might help here. -I like the way you bring in His as an example of someone who went against Haeckel. Could you try to explain why His doesn’t have as much prominence in the field today as Haeckel? -The way you list the oppositions to Haeckel is good, but is there a way you could organize the arguments and summarize what the main arguments were?

Peer review by Bryan I agree with Eugene that the intro is well worded and that perhaps a breif definition of morphology would add clarification. For so much resistance to Haeckel it is strange how prevelant his drawings are. Where there any supporters of Haeckel that could be mentioned? Or perhaps some politcal events that may have influenced these drawings being so popular? It seems like everybody was against this guy and yet he still got his drawings widespread attention. I don't know if this imformation is out there or if maybe I got the wrong idea of importance that Haeckel's drawing had. Just some information about why His's or von Baer's works were not more widely accepted may acomplish the same affect. Very nice job covering the opposition to Haeckel.

Peer review by Christy

The intro is concise but I feel like a small definition of what an embryo is would be helpful for those readers who don't know.  :) Also, what is the time frame? The people you mention in the intro - when did they contribute? You mentioned the theory of evolution, so in the intro you could put it in perspective and mention to the reader that his "research" was done after Darwin's book and was influenced by it. Maybe you could mention that his fraudulent drawings are significant b/c not only are they still prevalent today (already mentioned) but that comparisons with true/accurate drawings have spurred along the biological sciences and promoted scientific integrity and accuracy??? Totally not necessary how I phrased it, but it would be good to add something more about the significance. I agree with Bryan about any info you can find on supporters. One thing about the article itself: the paragraphs are very dense, please break them up to make it visually appealing and to make it easier to for the reader to read.  :) Overall, I agree about the good job covering the opposition and the detail about the drawings themselves.

Peer Review by Mike:

I enjoyed reading your article. My suggestion has more to do with organization than anything else. All of your information is set up in 4 very long sections with very long paragraphs. My suggestion is to split the paragraphs up and to perhaps make more descriptive titles so your article is easier to follow.

peer review by Tyler SCheid: I think that this article is incredibly thorough and provides an excellent amount of information and in a great manner. There was a great amount of sources and this was obvious from the article. My one critique although the it was an incredible extensive and thorough article, is that the organization could use some work. The headings and the separations of the article into different sections was good but it could use some more work. Large paragraphs are intimidating to me and I think to other people and it would be better to separate the large paragraphs into smaller, more point by point focuses. This way it will be easier to read and will also be less intimidating to the reader. Overall I think the wording is good and the information that is being provided is done so in a good manner. I would also do the same thing with the introduction. I believe that it needs to be separated into multiple paragraphs as well and possibly lengthened to encompass the entire article better.

Pier Review-Jaymie

I thought the article was very indepth and informative. Your coverage of the drawings and the oppositions were very interesting, and I think that this is a very well written article. I do agree that it could be split into more sections due to how long each section is. I think many interesting oppositions were brought up and could be split up into more headings. The first time I really saw in dates used was in the Ernest Haeckel (1834-1919). Should there be year listings some where in the introduction? Overall, I felt the article was very interesting and covered many great apsects of the topic.