User:Joseph0618/John Shaw Billings/Jsun72 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? Joseph0618
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Joseph0618/John Shaw Billings

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
I believe that the Lead (or at least the one in the sandbox) may be improved. The last sentence discussing the length of Billings' involvement with Johns Hopkins seems a bit "tacked on," and if removed, would not damage the integrity of the Lead in the slightest. The information would perhaps be better suited in the "Late Career" section of the article since it is too specific for the Lead but at the same time is significant enough to be incorporated in the article later on. The Lead does indeed have a brief description of the major sections, though, and the added sentence concerning the Billings' major contributions despite not being in the "Big Four" suits the overall Lead, which besides the point mentioned earlier seems good.

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
The content added is indeed relevant to the topic, seeing as it all discusses the life of John Shaw Billings, and the sources are relatively up-to-date. Seeing as Billings was born in the 19th century and died in the early 20th, the disparity of a few years between sources is not all too significant, which I believe is another reason to support the validity of sources used. However, one thing I noted is the discussion of the punch-card system introduced by Billings in both the Late Career as well as the Notable Achievements section. Since there is a lot of detail in both (albeit slightly more in the Notable Achievements section), reading the article feels repetitive if the same information is repeated in two places. I would recommend making the paragraph in Late Career concerning the library work briefer and to instead extrapolate in the Notable Achievements section. Moreover, I believe that there should be a citation for the entrance of the Johns Hopkins Hospital still being called the BIllings' Building (just to turn that sentence from statement to fact).

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
Although the content added appears largely to take an objective stance, there are bits and pieces where bias shows up. For example, there is a sentence under the Billings' Building section that states Billings "perfect[ed] the perfect layout for teaching" and another in the Hospital Architecture section which talks about "his ingenuity in design." Both of these example seem to be in favor of this contribution's importance. Additionally, under the Hospital Infrastructure section, a sentence states Billings to have "understood the importance of choosing who works in the hospital and how they interacted with one another." The latter portion of this sentence ("how they interacted with one another") does not seem to have much basis, and should therefore either be removed or have evidence supporting the control of behavior be added into the text. In other words, although most content appears fine, the writers of this article should be careful in how they phrase information if they choose to add more (which hopefully they will).

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
Most of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, although there were a select few sentences that were not (see above evaluations). One source that I did note is "http://www.encyclopedia.com/people/literature-and-arts/libraries-books-and-printing-biographies/john-shaw-billings#3404707961," which is a page from an encyclopedia page. Rather than using this as the citation, it may be preferable to use the original source that the encyclopedia entry itself cites for the information. On the other hand and as previously stated, the sources used are indeed current and the several that I checked did 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 content added is very well-written and lacks visible errors besides one instance, the "perfect[ed] the perfect layout" phrase as stated in the Tone and Balance Evaluation. Additionally, the content appears to be well-organized and (I believe) is an improvement from the original article that rightfully emphasizes Billings' role at Hopkins 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 sandbox article added two new images, both of which were Billings' works. In my opinion, they do well in explaining his "ingenuity" and the visual helps readers greatly; physical things, particularly architecture, are much more difficult to explain accurately in words than in pictures. They are also well-captioned and do indeed adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (according to the website from which the images were obtained). And, finally, the images are laid out in a visually satisfactory manner.

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
The content added has, in my opinion, improved the overall quality of the article. I believe that the additional information about Billings' role in the development of the Johns Hopkins Hospital as well as his general Johns Hopkins affiliation is crucial in adequately capturing his life's work and subsequent legacy. Thus, the added information has good material, and although the majority of it will improve upon the article, as seen in the previous sub-evaluations, there may still be more edits to be made. Finally, the content can be improved by adding more on the legacy, perhaps, of Billings (so how his innovations or ideas have affected modern day society) since there is already a decent amount of information on the things he did while he was alive.