User:Caitlinbarr/General Hospital of Paris/Pioneer Rose Peer Review

Peer review by Mikayla Haefele
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) Caitlinbarr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Caitlinbarr/sandbox/General Hospital of Paris

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. But I would change the ending from "intended as a place of confinement of the poor" to "intended as a place where the poor were confined" or something like that so the sentence flows better.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Partially. Once you add the sentence about how long the Hospital existed I think you should be good.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All the content that is there seems to belong. You already marked the places where there is missing content. If you are not already planning to do so, I would suggest adding a section about the current status of the General Hospital (were the buildings sold/demolished/etc? Do any function as actual hospitals today?)

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content itself seems fairly neutral - you concisely explain how the General Hospital was formed and who it housed and why. Regarding terminology, I wonder if avoiding words like "madwomen" and "madhouse" would be appropriate. I suppose I don't actually know what the "politically correct" term would be, but perhaps you could say something along the lines of "mentally challenged" and "mental institution." Maybe it doesn't matter, but I can imagine a scenario in which someone would be made uncomfortable with that sort of language. You could also put those words in quotes to show that you know that they are not the terms that would be used nowadays but nevertheless were used when the Hospital General was operating (if that is, in fact, the case).
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are many citations to support the new content that was added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I imagine there is more literature on this, but perhaps many of the sources are in French. I counted at least ten different sources so I would think that those sources somewhat reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current? Some are current (within the last ten years), but many are from the 1960s, including Foucault's book which you cite many times. I think what you have definitely works, but if you are able to find a few more recent sources, it would only strengthen your article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. There are some quotes and words that are italicized and I don't think they need to be (perhaps this is you leaving a note to yourself, but in the final draft I would make sure the quotes are in plain font).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some sentences/sections that have grammar that could be revised for clarity. There is a typo in the "Founding" section - you typed 1956 when I believe you meant 1656.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the section headings you added are appropriate. You might consider moving the "Operations/Practices" and "Population" sections to the beginning of the "Operations" section because that info is really interesting and is honestly probably what people would be more interested in reading when they are searching for this article.

I mages 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?

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? Yes! You took this topic from a sad little stub to a great article. Nicely done!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The "Founding" Section is definitely a strength, as is the information you added about the specifics of the population and which people were sent to which hospitals.
 * How can the content added be improved? Once you add the missing content I think your article will be thorough and provide an adequate overview of the topic. One thing to note is that if you are quoting from the same page in a source, you an reuse your citation rather than creating a new one - I think this would help you condense your references section.