User:Adevire1/William R. Brody/Hsim2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Adevire1, Mtesta4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Adevire1/William R. Brody

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has been edited so that it contains less information than before. It is much more concise with a good introductory sentence on the article's topic. However, it could seem overly concise as it does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
A large section on the Brody Learning Commons have been added. While it does have relevance to the article's topic, there seems to be too much information on the building itself rather than on William Brody. A section on Awards and Honors has been added, which contains useful information typically found in biographies. The article seems to lack information on the personal life.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is mostly factual and depicts a neutral tone with no claims that appear heavily biased and no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The added content has supportive reliable source, but one suggestion I would make is to search for more sources published by institutions and companies other than Johns Hopkins University. For example, the entire section on Brody Learning Commons is heavily reliant on just one source published by Johns Hopkins University. This could potentially raise concerns of bias towards William Brody's time at and contribution to Hopkins.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The overall organization of this draft shows dramatic improvement when compared to the currently published article. It is easy to read now as there are clear sections with no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
The image of Brody is a better representation than the image posted in the currently published article, and the added image of the Brody Learning Commons definitely enhances the understanding of the building. Both images are well-captioned and they do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (received consent from source).

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article includes more information than before and is better organized. It could still be improved by adding more content about Brody's personal life as it only has one sentence in the section without a source linked to it. There could also be more information on notable work during the time he served as the president of Johns Hopkins University.