User:Jsdento/Herodicus/CJessica Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Jsdento
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jsdento/Herodicus
 * Link to the current version of the article: Herodicus

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the Lead was significantly expanded to reflect new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead has an introductory sentences that describes Herodicus.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article only has one major section, but yes, the Lead does introduce this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead does have a lot of detail and is a bit lengthy.
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead does have a lot of detail and is a bit lengthy.
 * The Lead does have a lot of detail and is a bit lengthy.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Considering that this person lived in the 5th Century BC, the information is as up to date as it can be for a topic of this nature.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not much information is provided about his personal life (birth, death, family, etc.). Although, this may be difficult to find given the circumstances.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not much information is provided about his personal life (birth, death, family, etc.). Although, this may be difficult to find given the circumstances.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not see any heavily biased claims. All claims are referenced to the specific philosopher who made them.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, although I do wish more detail was provided surrounding his medical regiments and identity controversy.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is very neutral and not persuasive.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content is very neutral and not persuasive.
 * No, the content is very neutral and not persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are many sources references throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources include a variety of journals, articles, and books. They are all peer-reviewed and of credible sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources range from 2005-2021, so they are very current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked do work with the exception of citation 4 which leads to a page not found.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked do work with the exception of citation 4 which leads to a page not found.
 * The links that I checked do work with the exception of citation 4 which leads to a page not found.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is easy to read and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical errors that I could find.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is organized, but perhaps could be further broken down into more sections that are clearer and easier to read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is organized, but perhaps could be further broken down into more sections that are clearer and easier to read.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the article is certainly more complete and gives a better understanding of Herodicus's contributions to the medical field.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added provides a deeper scientific understanding of his medical practices, how they were implemented, and what his contemporaries thought of them.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Providing a clearer separation between subject changes by using more headings and making the Lead more concise would improve the content added. Overall, it is an excellent addition to the existing article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Providing a clearer separation between subject changes by using more headings and making the Lead more concise would improve the content added. Overall, it is an excellent addition to the existing article.