User:Conradsay/Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center/Zeeshaan Chunawala 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? Conradsay
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Conradsay/Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center

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 is identical to that of the original article. The first sentence states that Bayview is a medical hospital located in Baltimore. The lead mainly explains where Bayview is rather than the history, operating capacity, or notoriety of the hospital; there is some mention of the burn unit though which could speak to the famous nature of the hospital. The lead does not effectively touch on the major topics of the article. Exact location of where the hospital is (cross-streets) comes off as overly detailed because 3 sentences are dedicated to describing where is is, when "East Baltimore" would suffice. Overall, the lead could use a fair amount of editing to make it more relevant to the hospital and to highlight the accomplishments of the hospital. The side Infobox could also use some work to see if important facts can be added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content refers to the the Bayview hospital and the functions it carries out
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I think the content aspect is lacking in this article. I would think that there is content that can be added to this article such as: famous people who worked at Bayview, a more comprehensive history, procedures developed at Bayview, more details on famous departments, the controversy/tensions between Bayview and the community, and outreach/press releases of the hospital in recent news. The content, like the number of beds, may be out of date since the reference was from fiscal year 2018. I think all the current content belongs, but much more could be added to render a significant contribution and improvement to the article.

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
Some sentences, like the first one in the history section, use the words "distinguished" and "excellence" which may not be all that neutral. Otherwise though, the claims appear to be very factual and unbiased. The history section references the Hopkins Medicine site, so that could introduce some bias into the true history of the Bayview Hospital. As I touched on above, I would be interested in presenting the controversies of the hospital and its relationship with the surrounding community, but tread that path carefully to ensure equitable representation of all perspectives.

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 sources work, and most claims are backed up by sources. Overall, there appears to be a lack of sources with less than 8 unique sources. Many of the sources are cited multiple times at the bottom, but you should be able to just reuse the same citation number in the body rather than list the same source repeatedly in the bibliography. I think the article could use some higher profile, less local news sources like the NYT, Washington Post, Scientific American, etc. There could be some interesting information in those news sources, so I'd take a look. With regards to bed capacity, you might want to see if there is a more recent source, but 2018 is relatively recent, so it may be ok.

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
There are a couple grammatical mistakes in the history section and a couple repeated sentences in the operations sections, but otherwise, I think the content is well-written and easy to read. The text doesn't ramble and comes off like the tone of a normal Wikipedia articles. As for organization, I think it is fine as it stands, but more sections can be added to make the article more complete and build a better picture of the hospital as a whole.

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
I'm not sure how effective the map photo is, since you can just link the coordinates in Wikipedia. It'd be nice to see some historical photos of the Hopkins hospital in the early 1900's and a typical room in the hospital. The photo in the infobox says that it is in the Public Domain so that adheres to the copyright regulations. The caption is also appropriate and the photos are appealing to see.

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
I think this article is a solid first draft and built on the stub that the article was before these edits were made. Here are some ideas of things you might want to consider adding to make the article more complete: famous people who worked at Bayview, a more comprehensive history, procedures developed at Bayview, more details on famous departments, the controversy/tensions between Bayview and the community, and outreach/press releases of the hospital in recent news. Personally, I think appropriate photos add a lot to an article, and using one per subheading is generally appropriate. Overall, I sense that a person can learn a lot of basic details from this current article, but there isn't really a cohesive story that emerges from the entire article that shows how the hospital is established as one of the best in the state of MD (which it objectively is). Focusing on those suggested topics might help that theme emerge.