User:Joseph0618/John Shaw Billings/MKichar1 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
The updated lead provides relevant information previously included in the article and also covers the new information added. The last time in the edited lead could be shortened or combined with the previous sentence about Billings' involvement with Johns Hopkins, as the lead should only include necessary details. The other areas in the lead include a good amount of detail for the major sections in the rest of the article. There is not any redundancy that needs to be removed in the lead.

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 to the article is relevant to the works and life of Billings. Most of the content found for Billings is in historical texts/sources, and can be considered up-to-date. The content added for the Johns Hopkins University section of the article is relevant to Billings' most notable achievements, and adds to the overall information of the article. More information could be included for his work at the other hospitals and universities, to diversify the content on his affiliations.

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 neutral in tone and seems unbiased, but is mainly relevant to only Johns Hopkins. If available, information could be included from other areas of Billings' early works and his involvement with other universities/organizations. More details could also be provided for his role in supervising the U.S. Census.

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
There are good citations throughout the text that follow the statements made in the article. These links work and link to some recent and some historical sources. There is variety in the sources between websites, books, and pdfs. These documents come from a variety of sources, which helps prevent bias.

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 organization into paragraphs with headings helps make the article easy to read. The addition of more subheadings in the edited article helps with its structure. There are no standout grammar or spelling errors in the content, and the added material is concise. The good format and clear writing help make the article easy to read.

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 and citations in the article help show the hospital design that Billings planned for Johns Hopkins. Using one of his famous designs the including his actual blueprint help the reader visualize this information and enhance the text. The images are both on the right-hand side of the screen and do not interrupt the flow of the article. Both of the images were uploaded in 2014 to WikiMedia, under a Creative Commons license.

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 added content has improved the article, specifically in areas relevant to Johns Hopkins and its hospital. The sources added also are correctly added and give value to the information present in the article. Good structure and paragraph formats help with the readability of the article overall. The two images and citations included correspond well with the information within the article.

The content added could be improved by including more information about the other organizations and universities that Billing was involved with. This could give a detailed and complete picture of his work and achievements. Minor changes to make the lead section more concise can also help improve the edit.