I am glad you are working on a rewrite and I will be glad to help out. There are 2 problems I see with what you are doing so far. One is that you really can't tell this story without a little historical context and in particular you can't leave out Morgan and the fruit fly work (and the change in the perception of what mutation was and how it affected the genetic variability of the populstion from the ideas of the earlier Mendalians such as De Vries). So at some point something about it has to go back in. The other is that most modern historians of science (Larson, Bowler, Gould) treat the foundation of population genetics as the start (Gould calls it the first phase) of the modern synthesis, not part of the run up to it. I realize this view differs somewhat from the view of Mayr who emphasizes more the later parts of the synthesis that involved the integration of other fields of biology with population genetics as the actual synthesis, but on this point I think, the article needs to follow the views of most current historians of science rather than those of Mayr or the other participants. There is a reason why historians do not rely exclusively on first person accounts of the participants in an event, and the biggest has to do with perspective. Hopefully we can resolve these issues with compromise inline with the best traditions of Wikipedia rather than the worst traditions of Wikipedia (edit warring) )