User:MKichar1/Mayo A. Shattuck III/Reneeliiu 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) MKichar1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mayo A. Shattuck III

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There were no edits made to the Lead. The Lead, although short, summarizes Mayo A. Shattuck III pretty well. It states what he is recognized for being, "an American businessman and philanthropist", and what he is currently doing.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is the Table of Contents, but the Lead doesn't really touch on the controversies surrounding Shattuck III's life, so that could be a sentence to add.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise. It is only two sentences long and very to-the-point.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. However, there is a large focus on Constellation, and not too much about anything else. Seeing as this is the main thing Shattuck III did though, it is understandable.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It seems that he retired in 2013. That seems to be the most recent information the article has about him.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the "Early life and education" section, the year of Shattuck III's father's death doesn't really seem fitting, as it is not really relevant to Shattuck III's life. If the writers do believe it is important, they should change "He" to "Shattuck Jr" because I thought for a moment that they were talking about Shattuck III.
 * Also in the "Early life and education" section, the writers added "Shattuck Jr. also served as a managing director at one of Boston's most respected institutional money managers." It would be helpful if they added the name of this instution.
 * There doesn't seem to be any content missing.
 * Add the fact that he is a co-chair of "Rising to the Challenge" to the "Philanthropy" section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Consider changing this sentence "His time at Alex. Brown impressed other business leaders. Howard Schultz, chairman and chief executive of Starbucks Coffee, called Shattuck a "brilliant strategist." " to "During his time at Alex. Brown, Howard Schultz, chairman and chief executive of Starbucks Coffee, called Shattuck a "brilliant strategist." "
 * This change would allow readers to make the inference on their own that he impressed other business leaders.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. The article really just explains the contributions (both positive and negative) he's made to each company he's worked for.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The "Controversy" section does a good job of not being biased, but instead just stating the concerns of critics, and what ultimately happened.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I did a quick Google search of him, and mostly all the pertinent sources are covered. The only one that didn't seem to be covered was this article https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2018/winter/friends-for-life-rising-campaign/.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not really. However, most of the sources related to Shattuck are from 2013-2014, so it's not the author's fault.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I see
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. I like the new section that they added "Controversy", and removing the "Other affiliations" section but instead incorporating it into his "Career".

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there should be a picture of him added.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes. I believe it was essential to add the "Controversy" section, because it adds another perspective to the article. There should be some improvement on the information they added to "Early life and education", but those suggestions have already been detailed earlier in the Peer Review (under Content). The added information about his time as CEO of Constellation helped improve the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * As stated above, "Controversy" was good in highlighting that he had critics and how he reacted to them. It's important for readers to see that everyone, even very successful, wealthy, men will be criticized sometimes. The expansion upon philanthropy was good in connecting the article to Johns Hopkins Medicine. Adding more to the "Career" section gave good insight into what he did in his occupation.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The last sentence of the "Career" sentence "As a non-executive chairman less is required of Shattuck, allowing him to shift his focus from many of the daily tasks associated with leading the company." leaves me wondering what he's shifting his focus to. Is he shifting his focus to Hopkins? Nowhere in the "Career" section is there any mention of Hopkins.
 * Perhaps consider adding the part about him currently serving as co-chair of the JHU Capital Campaign to the "Career" portion to explain what he is focused on now.