User:Ewhiteh6/John Auer/Amathu15 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? Ewhiteh6, Macullau
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ewhiteh6/John Auer

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
As it currently reads, the lead presents the most relevant content in the article those being his University affiliations and Auer's specific contributions through research and surgical practice. The introductory sentence of the lead in very effective in that is more broadly demonstrates, but in a concise manner, what areas of science Johns Auer specialized in and what areas his contributions are notable for. The last sentence of his contributions during the World War could be elaborated more specifically to concisely give readers an idea what exactly was his wartime research such that readers better understand the significance of his work with the Rockefeller institute. One line that I feel might be unnecessary in this lead, is the mention of his name being attached to 150 Publications. While I understand how this fact may be used to represent the Research Publications sub-section of this article, I think that to include this fact in the lead is to distract from Auer's more significant contributions that are important to understanding his significance in scientific history. As some final remarks, I would like to add that the lead is very concise and represents the Research Contributions sub-section of this article which holds the most significance in this article.

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
After reading the article a few times, I can say that mostly all content in this article in relevant. Most of the article is made up of information describing Auer's career, research and his involvement in within the scientific community. I think that having these topics representing the majority of the content is only fitting giving that the lead of the article describes Auer as an important figure in the field of Pharmacology and Physiology. Thus, covering these topics give readers a sense of what Auer achieved, where he achieved it, and which organizations have recognized those achievements. Generally, I believe that the author was extremely successful in representing John Auer's historical importance in a concise but complete manner. However, there are some things that are distracting or unnecessary.

Particularly, I feel that the use of quotes in both the Career and Research Contribution sub-sections are not necessary to understanding the content. In fact, removing these quotes might be helpful to enhancing the clarity of the content, particularly in the Research Contributions sub-section. For example, the quote from Auer's 1906 publication, "Some hitherto undescribed structures found in the large lymphocytes of a case of acute leukemia" not only introduces complicated concepts of lymphocytes, but it distracts from the readers understanding of the controversy of eponymous nature of Auer Rods. My suggestion would be that the quote should be removed from this section as readers interested in reading this report could use the bibliography to find the original source.

As a final note, all of the sources are from having been published between 2010 and 2020. The only sources that are from the 1900’s are those from the registries of Universities Auer was affiliated with as well as Auer’s own papers.

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
Overall, the article maintains a neutral tone. However, there might be some places where the author could seem biased toward one position. In the last paragraph of the Career subsection, the author quotes the Administrative Board’s resolution following Auer’s death which reads, “A scholar of the broadest interests and a human being of the highest nobility.” While this is a quote representing another individual’s opinion of Auer, the inclusion of it in the Career subsection might suggest that the author who included it highly regards Auer. Yet, I feel that this would not be a common interpretation of the quote. Additionally, the authors were successful in neutralizing the controversy surrounding the Auer rods. The author only presents reasons why the controversy exists rather than exploring which arguments are more effective. From first glance at the article, it seems that the Career and Research contributions sub-sections have the most content, but I think that this is appropriate in order for readers to understand the significance of John Auer. I think that the topics under the Research Contributions also reflect the significance of Auer’s different contributions, as well. Thus, there are no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. Additionally, I feel that all of the sources are cited equally throughout the article.

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
Aside from Auer’s own papers, all of the articles cited are secondary print or on online sources. Many of the sources come medical journals, such as the American Journal of Hematology. This ensures that the cited content comes from professionals in related fields of medicine and science. Additionally, the titles of two sources, those being “101 years of MCrCrae’s not Auer’s rods” and “Auer rods or McCrae rods" demonstrate that the authors made the effort to read arguments on both sides of the debate regarding the true contributor to the discover of Auer rods. As a result, they article objectively represents two the reasons for the debate surrounding the main contributor to Auer rods rather than giving an opinion on debate. Additionally, the articles cites a press articles from Rockefeller University with which Auer was once associated. While this article could be biased and present Auer in a positive light given Auer's past association, the source objectively summarizes Auer's work with endotracheal anesthesia.

One source that I am not sure is as reliable as the others is the "Who Named It" encyclopedia. When I clicked on the page, I noticed just by the graphics of the page that the source is not supported or published by any reputable source. In addition, there are only a few articles published on their page because the source in a medical eponym, meaning that they only write articles of individuals who have a medical discovery named after them. The encyclopedia is certainly not monitored or added to very often considering that the list of articles published on their website is very small and not representative of most medical eponyms. Additionally, the website has many pop-up ads. Thus, there should be some caution in using this source. Fact-checking should be done against other more reliable sources. However, all of the other articles are very comprehensive and come from a spread of different sources including registries from the universities Auer was associated with. Since most claims have been cited with at least two sources, it is likely that their content overlaps and that all the articles selected reflect the available literature on the topic.

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
First, the language in the sub-section titled Research Contributions is technical and complicated. I’m not sure that it can be easily understood by any general reader, which is the purpose of the Wikipedia article. For example, in your description of Auer Rods you write, “Auer rods are found only in neoplastic cells which makes them important for the diagnosis fo acute promyelocytic leukemia.” While experts in medicine and science will understand this, I as a general reader could not. Since I did not know what neoplastic cells were or promyelocytic leukemia, I could not understand the significance of the Auer Rods in science. One way to maintain the technicality of language but also not lose meaning is to hyperlink scientific terms that might need more clarification. By doing so, readers can refer to these other Wikipedia pages (especially their leads) to clear any confusion. Another way to enhance the article's clarity might be to define more terms within the content. This could however, distract from the article’s content. The same revisions could also apply to your captions for the image you have included.

One addition to this article that was very valuable was the information box. Having this information box at the top could lead to some effective organizational changes of the article. That is not to discount the current organization of this article which is very strong. I found the choice to arrange content from very important to least important effective. This would allow readers to understand the significance of Auer's contribution in medicine without having to browse through the entire article. One minor suggestion I have is that the Education sub-section could be placed near the Personal Life sub-section. I understand why you might have organized it this way to demonstrate his connection with Hopkins at the forefront. However, since Auer's educational path is presented quickly in an Information Box, there is no harm moving the education section down near the personal life section.

With regards to grammar and spelling errors, this article is mostly free of either. I only noticed one spelling mistake in the sub-section, Auer Rods. Here, the word "form" should replace "from".

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
In this article, 1 image was added depicting Auer Rods. The caption that was added to the image reads, "BONE MARROW: AUER RODS Two myeloblasts with single, prominent Auer rods. (Wright-Giemsa stain)." With my limited science, I can assume that that this caption represents the image well. However, I believe that such a technical caption might not be needed to explain the image to a general audience. Including new terms such as myeloblasts, and Wright-Giemsa stain in this caption might confuse a general reader as they try to identify the Auer rods in the picture. Nevertheless, I think that this caption is thorough and serves a purpose to the readers understanding.

While the image is informative, it is not laid out as well as it could be. Currently, the picture lies between two sub-sections of the article. The picture would be more effective if it was in line with the Auer Rods section under the research contributions sub-section. As a final note, the image used is available in the Public Domain, thus the authors have adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not Applicable for the Article that I Peer Reviewed.

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
As compared to the live Wikipedia article on John Auer, this revised version is extremely comprehensive and eloquently written. The most notable difference in the content between this draft and the current article is that there are more technical details used to describe each of Auer's different contributions in pharmacology and physiology. The attention to detail that the authors gave to this section makes their article successful in capturing the significance of the John Auer, which is the intent of all Wikipedia articles. The addition of the Information Box at the top of the article and the image of the Auer Rods in body of the article offer visual elements that summarize the article's main points which can help a reader in need of a quick overview of the article.

One notable change that the authors made was to the organization of the articles. I especially thought that breaking away from the conventional chronological organization of biography articles was a great choice. To present the most relevant information at the front of the article ensures that readers are not distracted from the the main ideas or "takeaways" of the article. Another strength of the article is the command over language. This draft uses very strong and academic language while maintaining a neutral tone. In addition, the authors avoid using long run-on or compound sentence adding clarity to their content. One final but notable strength of the article is the variety in the sources that the author used. The bibliography cites sources from newspapers, university registries, and scientific journals. In addition, all of the sources were cited at least twice and all claims have at least 2 citations, thus proving the reliability of the content added. While the article excels in many ways, there is still some areas in which it can improve. I believe that the language in the sub-section titled Research Contributions is extremely technical and complicated. As mentioned above, one way to maintain clarity and technicality is to hyperlink scientific terms that might need more clarification. By doing so, readers can refer to these other Wikipedia pages (especially their leads) for a clearer picture of the content. Another way to enhance clarity might be to define more terms within the content. This could however, distract from the article’s content. The same revisions could also apply to your captions for the image you have included.