User:Alexander Quellhorst/Philosophy of healthcare/Nkerry2265 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Alexander Quellhorst
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alexander Quellhorst/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, he explains how religion and healthcare can intertwine.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it lays our the article nicely.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and to the point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all was relevant and educational.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes along with historical interpretations and facts.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does not seem like any content is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, no bias present.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all claims are factual and unbiased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All viewpoints are presented enough for the reader to understand but not overly representative.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it was giving a look into religious ethics. Pure facts and no persuasion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there is two journals and another article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Source 1 and 2 are great sources while source 3 might be reaching a little bit.
 * Are the sources current? Two are but one is from almost forty years ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, after you log in to view journal article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, even though I am not at all familiar with this topic, I understand it while reading.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it is very well written and checked thoroughly.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the three paragraphs are separated.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, he added one image that helps understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned? Very much so.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, it could be slightly bigger but it looks good and goes with the article nonetheless.

For New Articles Only- N/A
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? Yes, it gives another outlook on healthcare.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? A new outlook and section of academics; this article could be read more in the future.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content from more sources. It is great in itself though.