User:Hsim2/Max Brödel/Ewhiteh6 Peer Review

General info

 * Review of Hsim2 and Backbrush's draft of "Max Brödel"
 * User:Hsim2/Max Brödel

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

 * No new content was added, but the existing content was updated for grammatical accuracy
 * Good introductory sentence, properly formatted
 * Summarizes the main ideas (medical illustrator, carbon dust, Department of Art as Applied to Medicine)
 * Does not contain extraneous information (however, I would recommend linking Dr. Carl Ludwig's name to show that he is significant and deserves to be mentioned in the lead)
 * Appropriate length

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

 * Added content is relevant and helps to fill gaps (like Brödel's first exposure to medical illustration)
 * Content is up to date (many sources from this year)
 * Information was added on the lives of each of his children. The information about Elizabeth and Carl seems appropriate, as they involve medical illustration and Johns Hopkins, respectively, but the information about Ruth and Elsa seems of lesser importance.

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

 * The content added is generally of a neutral perspective
 * The added statement, "In 1913, he was invited to join the Saturday Night Club, a group of musicians and intellectuals that played music together and enjoyed boisterous conversation and drinks," is some somewhat positive-leaning
 * Viewpoints do not seem to be overrepresented. Brödel's attention to detail is discussed at length, but this is one of the main aspects that makes him notable.  It is therefore appropriate to discuss it at length.
 * The added content adds information, not persuasion.

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

 * New content is supported with citations
 * Wide breadth of sources from respected institutions (such as NCBI)
 * Sources are current, many are even from this year
 * Links work

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

 * The style of writing is solid. There are a few statements I might consider revising.  For example:
 * "At age 15, Brödel began to develop his artistic abilities at the Leipzig Academy of Fine Arts for a classical education in painting and drawing." (in a program for?)
 * There are a few grammatical errors. For example:
 * "After a few months of his death, an intensive study of the human ear had been published as his final project." (was published?)
 * The organization is good and a vast improvement over what was there originally.

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
N/A

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
N/A

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

 * Because this article was already pretty well developed, it seems like there perhaps was not much content to add. However, the content that was added was very informative and filled important gaps in the original article.  (Like the information on Brödel's magnification technique).
 * The strength of the content added comes from its specificity.
 * The content added could be brushed up grammatically but is very solid.

~