User:Amathu15/Teaching hospital/Rbachan1 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? (provide username) Amathu15 and BiancaSkelton
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Amathu15/Teaching hospital

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated to reflect new content, as well as the removal of other unnecessary content. The Lead is now more concise, and it flows better.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead does 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?
 * The Lead does not include a description of the article's major sections. However, it does talk briefly about the educational services a teaching hospital would provide.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * All the information in the lead is also present later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise. In fact, some unnecessary information was removed from the old Lead, making it better.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is strong, and has been improved on. I would consider adding a few brief descriptions for the Treatment and Services section (as compared to a normal hospital), as well as the General Organization and Structure section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * A lot of content has been added, but it is all relevant to the topic. The additions improve upon the foundation set by the article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The additions are up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think any content is missing, but I'm not sure how relevant the In Culture section is.

Content evaluation
Overall, the added content improves the article, and provides more detail where there previously wasn't any. However, I feel that the In Culture section is not as relevant as the others, and that it doesn't add much to the article. It wouldn't hurt to keep it, but I don't think it helps the overall understanding of a teaching hospital either.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The added content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There aren't any heavily biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is informational without being biased.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is encyclopedic and informational. There aren't any heavily biased or persuasive claims.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of the sources are a little old. There are a couple that are over 15 years old. There are also a few sources that are more recent.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked a few links and they worked.

Sources and references evaluation
The content is backed up by reliable sources, but some of them are a little old. I would think that this shouldn't be a problem for the History section. Also, you should add a heading for the References section, as of right now there isn't one.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is clear and easy to read. It is concise for the most part.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The added content is grammatically correct, and I didn't see any spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added is organized very well.

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article is very good. The sections and subsections make it easy to navigate the article, as well as making it clear what is being written about in each area.

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
There are no images on this article.

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?
 * The additions have improved the article, it is more complete now.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The History section has been added to, and the additions helped my understanding of the history of teaching hospitals.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Making some of the added content a little more concise would help, or maybe adding a few pictures, as it looks like a lot of text right now.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the additions to this article are good and improve the quality of the article. However, I would consider adding some images to help the visual aspect. I feel that it just looks like a lot of text right now, and even just one image would help with that.