User:MKichar1/Mayo A. Shattuck III/SadieAbboud 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? MKichar1 and Jc181maple
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MKichar1/Mayo A. Shattuck III

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, I do not see any lead section included in the sandbox draft at all.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? If the editors were to keep the lead from the previous article, I do think the introductory sentence is sufficient in clearly describing that the article is about Mayo A. Shattuck III who is an American businessman and philanthropist.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, the lead from the previous article does not include information about his "philanthropy." I believe a sentence about this should be added since it is such a significant part of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead of the previous article is relevant to this article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead of the previous article (if you were to leave it unedited) is too vague and doesn't give enough information about Mayo A. Shattuck III. I think some information should be added regarding a brief overview what he did at each company in his career along with a sentence of his philanthropy/contributions to Johns Hopkins University.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant. The only thing I would recommend is maybe trying to connect Mayo A. Shattuck III and his roles more to the controversy that is discussed. Besides the one sentence that talks about him being scrutinized for contributing $8,000, there isn't much of a connection – which could make this section seem off topic to some readers.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, looking at the references, there is content as recent as 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I don't think anything is missing or does not belong (if a stronger connection is made in the controversy section as discussed earlier).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, especially in the section about controversy where neutrality is most important – both sides of the argument are addressed in an unbiased manner.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all claims are very neutral – does not make me feel pressured towards a certain standpoint or opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I think all viewpoints are represented fairly. The only thing I would be careful of is words like "critics." If you do choose to use these words, make sure to let readers know who exactly the "critics" are. Also include what groups of people stood on each side of the controversy if possible.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, again, I felt like I introduced to each position but not persuaded to a particular side in the debate.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I think more in-text citations need to be added to cite the source of data the information is taken from. There are currently citations after about every 5 sentences but they really should be after every other, if not every sentence.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are plenty of sources that information was taken from (a list of about 12 which I think is reflective of the information available).
 * Are the sources current? Yes, like I said earlier, the sources are as current as 2018 (which is as current as the information I found doing some searching).
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links I checked worked. Maybe add some more links to relevant wiki pages!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, well done with the sentence structure! It is very clean and easy to read, but while not being too simplistic.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? While reading the article, I did not come across any glaring spelling or grammar issues.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the bigger headings – yes. However, I would suggest breaking up the career section of this article with subheadings. The information of this section can be overwhelming and a lot to take in at once. I think adding subheadings would help readers direct their attention to specific sub-topics and make the article even more clear and easy to follow.

Images and Media – no media was added
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?

For New Articles Only – not a new article
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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, you completed a lot of half-finished statements/thoughts from the previous article. Expansions on the career, controversy, and philanthropy sections really helped to compete this article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Not only is the depth of information added great, but also the way in which it is presented. The sentences are very well structured, making the information very easy to follow. Additionally, I think you did a great job on adding the section on controversy in an unbiased way. Overall, great job on this draft!
 * How can the content added be improved? This draft can be improved with minor edits to the organization – such as organizing the larger sections with subheadings. I also think adding relevant media such as images of Mayo A. Shattuck III would greatly contribute to this article. My last recommendation would be to add an infobox or expand the previous one.