User:Hsim2/Max Brödel/Mtesta4 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): Hsim2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 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
Considering the rather long length of the article itself, the lead is appropriately detailed. My peer barely changed the existing lead; all that was changed was a replacement of "he" with "Brödel", the last name of the article's subject which added some syntactical clarity. After reading the article, there was mainly detail to the content that is not necessary to add to the Lead, suggesting that the lead was kept well-formatted and concise. It includes topics such as the carbon dust technique, Department of Art as Applied to Medicine, Howard Kelley, and others, most of which have their own subsections in the article and are integral parts of Brödel's career and life. The lead's opening sentence is extremely concise and clearly describes the article's topic: "Max Brödel (né/death) was a medical illustrator". All of what is included in the lead is present in the article, again, mainly the content that makes up the article's major sections.

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
Most of the content that was added to the article was indeed relevant. For example, my peer included included thee names of the important staff members that Brödel worked with at the end of the "Career of Johns Hopkins" section which transitioned nicely into the next section which was about his work with one of them, Howard Kelly in particular. This was more of a structural addition, more than content, as their names were previously mentioned in the lead. Most importantly, my peer included information in the "Work with Dr. Howard Kelly" section about Brödel's work and his specific technique that he developed for medical imaging. It added clarity by briefly explaining the technology at a more detailed level. There was some added content that I do not think was entirely relevant. For example, in the "Marriage and family" section, my peer added brief descriptions of the occupations/lives of all four of Brödels' children. Two of these descriptions are in the original article, so maybe by adding the other two it was making the article more structurally sound while also regarding cohesive content. However, how relevant is this information, really? Additionally, in the same section, when describing his hobbies, my peer adds a sentence with a reference briefly defining the Saturday Night Club. It provides a definition to an unclear term, but that term is not too relevant to the topic of the article. Additionally, a quote was added from Brödel himself regarding the science behind his work which either provides more relevant content or a possible bias. The content is indeed up to date, at least the information that was added. Most of the article was kept the same, content wise.

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 that was added is certainly neutral. Most of the content that was added is what I explained above and most of it was fact intended to extend a detail of a particular section. There are therefore on claims that appear biased toward a position, the only possible bias comes from the added quote from Brödel himself. The quote says, "No drawing was made by me without original study through injection, dissection, frozen section, or reconstruction". In this direct quote, Brödel is referring to his particular practice of work and is claiming that he never forgot to study the material through certain fashions before producing a final drawing. This possibly points to a particular position, that his work was very flawless and always perfectly executed. This quote would be more effective if it came from someone other than Brödel himself, and even that could explore a bias. There are no particular viewpoints under/overrepresented.

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
All of the links work. My peer added 9 links, making a total of 19. They are current and mainly from academic sources, used to cite the quote from above and the additions of Brödel's techniques. The sources are thorough but most of the information in the article is taken from sources that were already part of the original page.

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 content that was added was certainly well-written, except there was once instance where the added sentence was rather wordy/confusing. The sentence is: "Popularized in the 1900s, this method is applied with quite different materials and techniques, but the same principles are still used today because of its ability to capture a remarkable amount of fine visual detail as well as a close collaboration with physicians" and added parts range from "is applied.....principles are" and "as well as....physicians". The reason this is a bit difficult to read is because firstly it is rather long and stocky at parts. When my peer wrote in "quite different materials", that sounded a bit confusing when I read it. Maybe a word like "fairly" can replace "quite" or the syntax can be changed, maybe to say, "this method is applied with materials and techniques that are quite/fairly different". I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The organization of the content is what was altered the most from the original by my peer. They kept the major sections but turned some into subsections and condensed certain sections. For example, in the original article, there are two subsections of Department of Art as Applied to Medicine, so my peer combined the two. The main change they made was making two large sections with multiple subsections, meaning they took some main sections, like Early Career and Career at Johns Hopkins University and made them subsections under the main section Biography, in addition to Early Life and education, Marriage and family, Death and subsections under Career. The second main section is Legacy where my peer includes all of the subsections relating to the techniques he discovered, the books written, and archives with his images. I think it is definitely organized but could be broken down into more main sections to highlight the major points of the article even more.

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
The images in the article are from the original article. However, the image of Brödel himself from the beginning of the article was removed by my peer, in addition to the information box with his Nationality, Known For, and Spouse. The image was a bit blurry but mostly clear so it is unclear to me why it has been removed. The images that are a part of the article are of Brôdel's anatomical images and they definitely enhance understanding the topic of the 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I don't know how sure the quality of the article was improved. My peer chose an article that already had a large amount of information present about the topic. That is why it seems like the organization was worked on more than the addition of content. However, some of the content added was significant, as mentioned above. It strengthens the point of the article, looking at Brödel's work, but also the added quote could show some bias. I think the content can be improved by removing some information. For example, from the original article and into the revised one, my peer keeps a list of artists who were inspired by Brödel's work; to shorten it and to make it more relevant, back to Brödel, all that needs to be stated is something along the lines of "Brödel's work influenced several notable artists whose worked has also influenced the medical field". I think it has been difficult to add more information because there was not that much more to find/add.