Draft talk:Max Brödel

Peer edit
Nice job on outlining your draft! It's comprehensive and covers the major points of Brodel's life. I would suggested finding more information to add into the section regarding his work at Johns Hopkins. Furthermore, I would make sure to elaborate how Brodel influenced the people/institutions mentioned in section regarding his legacy. Your detailed outline gave me a better idea of how my article should be structured. Thank you!

Peer Review by Tingting
This is a very decent first-version draft article for Max Brödel. The possible structure (Headings, Categories, Subheadings) is very clear and reasonable. The first lines of quick information part are very useful and may be placed right below the picture (or portrait) of Max Brödel, so that people could quickly locate these information. The last two paragraphs are probably too long to be called “quick info“, and I suggest using them as leading section of the paragraph.

The body paragraphs (Medical career, personal life, legacy) all flow very smoothly. Still, you may want to integrate all the information. make them a nice paragraph and get rid of the bullet points when you are revising the draft. Also you may want to add more details about his experience at Hopkins, e.g. how he succeeded in founding the Department of Art as Applied to Medicine, what difficulties he once faced. The personal life part looks nice (since I attach more importance to his contributions in medical field), but people may want to learn more about his family and friends. The legacy section is my favorite and looks fantastic. (I think it is good to place the "Johns Hopkins Hospital" section where it is now, within the legacy section, but if you want to move it that's perfectly fine.)

The credibility of the sources looks good. Still, it may be helpful to cite not only online resources but also printed books, journals, etc. to increase the variety of sources. -Tingtingou (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review
This draft is a great representation of a wikipedia page. I definitely think it is well balanced in terms of the structure and information.

Suggestions: 1.) Maybe not have a heading named Biography. I was looking through other wikipedias and your subheadings (Early life and personal life) were their own headings. This is just a suggestion from what I have seen from other wikipedia articles, so maybe it can be a good idea. 2.) There's a (#5) in the early life paragraph. Not sure if it's there on purpose, just wanted to let you know in case you forgot. 3.) You could link Dr. Howard Kelly to his wiki page 4.) There are a few more #'s here and there which I'm probably assuming is for citing now. 5.) Under the Department of Art heading there seems to be a spacing problem in the last paragraph. 6.) If there's any more information about his death, you could add that to the Death section. 7.) Death and Illustrative could also possibly be their own headings, so like 1.3 and 1.4.

Overall the wikipedia page is great with the additional information. It definitely is more than what was originally there. Maybe add a picture. It would be cool if there was a picture of his Operative Gynecology textbook somewhere. I would suggest getting rid of the bullet points and linking names and terms to their wiki page if possible. In terms of citing, the sources are spread out evenly and relying on more than one source. The sources also seem to be correctly cited, so that's great. Sapphire l (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)