User:Jsdento/Herodicus/Clemson14 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work areyou reviewing?

Jsdento


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Jsdento/Herodicus
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Herodicus

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The current lead reflects the new content, and does a good job of concisely describing the articles topic. There is really only one major section, but the lead does a good job of setting up for the body of the article. The only information found in the lead that isn't found in the rest of the article is minor details, but the lead as a whole is not overly detailed. I think it does a good job of giving a summary of Herodicus, and then lets the body of the article go into more depth.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content is relevant to the topic of the article. My peer did a good job of gathering a wide range of information, from history on Herodicus to the theories that are still relevant today.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date, due to the fact that Herodicus was alive during the 5th century BC. So, there shouldn’t be any new information coming out in the future.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the content on the page definitely belongs and is well stated. The only missing content that I can think of is some more information on Herodicus’s early life, or personal life throughout his career.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is all factual and very neutral. There is one controversy that is brought up about the potential for there the have been two physicians named Herodicus, however it is only stated that there has been a conversation surrounding this topic. There is no persuasion whether or not there were one or two physicians named Herodicus.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is no large indication of biased positions on this page. However, it is brought up that “some scholars believe Hippocrates, often called the father of medicine, was influenced by Herodicus.” Depending on certain people’s opinions on the matter, this could be taken as a biased opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I’m not sure if there is information out there about this, but I think Herodicus’s early/personal life could add some important details for the reader. The page currently mainly focuses on his role in medicine, and where he was born or has lived, but doesn’t give much insight into Herodicus as a person.

Sources and References:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All of the new content is backed by either journals or other reliable sources. There are only a couple lines that are not directly cited, which is very good. The only critique I have is to add another source or two. All of the new information is backed by 3 sources, which while they may have good information, it is important to pull info from a range of sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content does closely reflect what the sources say. They are all from journals that are reliable and present the information very straightforward.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is definitely more available information, however as far as reliable resources goes, I was only able to find one or two more sources that stated the information very similarly to their current sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All of the information is accurate because Herodicus was alive so long ago. However, two of the sources are from the 2000s, and one is a little older from 1992. I don’t see this as an issue because the information likely hasn’t changed in this time period.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * After some research, there are many more articles and journals about Herodicus. Many of which state the same or similar information as to what was added to the Wikipedia page, however it may be beneficial to pull information from some of these other articles, so it is better backed up and there are more resources for the reader.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links worked for me, however some of the articles seemed to be locked behind a login or be restricted. After doing some digging with the title of the article, I was able to find the full article, but the links only presented an abstract or login screen.

Organization:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is all very easy to read and understand. There are no grammatical errors that I can see, and the page flows very well. I can tell my peer spent a lot of time deciding how to organize the information on their page, because the sandbox is primarily bullet-points, but then the wiki page itself is well laid out.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no spelling or grammar errors on the page, and my peer did a great job of keeping the information clear and concise. There is also a great use of punctuation, not overcomplex, but keeps the flow of the page clear.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e., broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized. While there isn’t a ton of information on Herodicus because he lived in the 5th century BC, the page is broken down into an intro and medical theories and practices. It seems like the vast majority of the information available on Herodicus has to do with his medical career.

Images and Media:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one portrait of Herodicus, which while it is nice to put a face to a name it does not enhance my understanding of the topic. It is important to have this picture, and I’m not sure of any other additional images that could be used.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There is no real need for a caption on this image, but the caption just reads “Herodicus.” If it were known when, where, or what was going on for this portrait it could be beneficial to add, but not super necessary.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, per Wikipedia a copyright term is the author’s life plus 70 years or fewer. They also state that the photo is a public domain work of art, because it is a faithful reproduction.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is laid out on the right side of the page, in line horizontally with the contents box. It does not disrupt too much text, and is a good filler for the blank space.

Overall impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article is much more complete with the information added. From what I have seen, this article must have been very bare of information. All of the information about Herodicus’s medical practices and beliefs were very informative, and is a great way of presenting the information available.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added are that the reader will much better understand what Herodicus believed in medically, what he accomplished, and his impact on the medicine after his time up until today. I think the flow and presentation of the information written is very strong, because it is easy to read and the facts/info are clearly stated and easy to understand.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The only improvement I can think of (mentioned a little earlier) is adding more information about Herodicus in his early days or in his personal life. Since he was alive so many centuries ago, a lot of this information may be difficult to find or discover, but it is an area for improvement. Lastly, there could be an addition of references and detail on the page. There are a total of 5 references (3 new) and a couple of them are the main sources used throughout the entire page for a lot of the information.