User:Ewhiteh6/John Auer/Conradsay 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

• I am reviewing the article John Auer by User:Ewhiteh6 and User:Macullau

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new sections added.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, states Auer's birth/death dates and his professions.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, mentions Auer's contributions that are expanded upon in future sections, and has a contents section for easy navigation to those topics.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, all the information in the lead is somewhere else in the article
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • While lead is concise, it may be too concise, I noticed that they removed information about Auer's education, family, and location he lived, and am curious as to why they did so, as this information is relevant background information which is useful introducing the topic.

Lead evaluation

Overall, lead is concise and introduces relevant information, I think the lead could benefit with more specific information and details about Auer to gain a better understanding for who Auer besides his contributions to science, e.g. where he lived, family, institutions associated with, etc.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes the content added is relevant to the John Auer, mainly discussing his career and research.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, although up-to-date is kind of irrelevant in this historic topic.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • While the research contributions are indeed relevant to Auer, I think further explanation as to why these discoveries were important (e.g. what the discovery did for modern science) especially for the Auer rods, a discovery with his namesake, would be beneficial in making this page more relevant. Also more biographical information of Auer would improve the page, e.g. early life, late life, legacy, etc.

Content evaluation

Overall the content is relevant and well presented and a vast improvement over the previous article, after reading it, I do think I have a better understanding for what John Auer contributed to science. There are certain improvements and editions that could be made, see above for those suggestions.

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

Tone is neutral and professional. Perhaps the only controversial topic is the naming of Auer Rods over McCrae-Auer rods, which article does address in a non-bias way.

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?
  • One link does not work, which is right underneath the John Auer header in the grey informational box.

Sources and references evaluation

Plenty of relevant and current sources provided, however, there is a severe lack of links to other Wikipedia pages, which would benefit the page tremendously especially in explaining difficult terms the average person may not understand or cross-linking to several institutions or ideas (e.g. the Auer Rod wikipedia page, Johns Hopkins wikipedia page, etc).

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

Information is clear and concise, no recognizable grammatical or spelling errors on first read, I would suggest a reorganization of content, perhaps putting private life sooner in the article as opposed to last as to better contextualize his discoveries and has a more natural order.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Does include a single image of what I think are Auer rods.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • No, image does not have a caption
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, public domain
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The image is placed in between two sections, I think it would be more clear as to which section this image applies to if it were in one or the other.

Images and media evaluation

This article does have a good image, however, its lack of caption and placement make it confusing as to what it represents. The article is also missing an image of John Auer, which is pretty critical in an article about the guy. I would suggest adding a picture of him as well as adding a relevant caption to the images.

For New Articles Only

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?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The article overall is a big improvement over the last article. It has added much more information as to John Auer's discoveries and contributions, his affiliations, and personal life. I think the article has its strength in the research side of John Auer: providing his discoveries in an easily understood, well organized, and thorough way (additionally providing publications and medical societies). However, it could be improved by adding more biographical information about John Auer (early life, education, legacy, etc.) having it as a focal piece and not a side note. Adding more crosslinks to other Wikipedia articles would also be beneficial in the clarity of the topic and stressing the importance of Auer's discoveries to modern medicine would improve the relevance of the article.