User:Conradsay/Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center/Fatehazannath 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)
  • I am reviewing the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center article, assigned to User:Conradsay and User:Pnovello.
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • The article I am reviewing is linked here.

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Based on the sandbox draft I am reviewing, both leads contain the same information. No edits have been made to the lead specifically as a result of the new content added by my peer.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The first sentence of the lead explains where the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center (JHBMC) is located and what its function is, which is a hospital. These are key pieces of information that is required to understand the topic of this article.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Although, there is not a description of the article's major sections in sentences, something that is usually necessary for articles, there is a contents section that gives an overview of the article's structure. The contents section shows the order of major headings, shown as the following:history, operations, clinical reform, references and external links. This brief overview is beneficial for readers to navigate the article's content.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead briefly mentions the multiple names JHBMC is known by, its location and its speciality burn facility. These are all topics that are further expanded upon in the major sections of history and operations.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is not overly detailed. Despite it being concise, I feel as though adding a few more details would help readers contextualize JHBMS further, especially from a historical and scientific standpoint. Perhaps including the year it was established alongside major medical contributions made by the burn clinic, would allow readers to further understand the significance of JHBMS in a concise manner.

Lead evaluation

Overall, I feel as though the lead did a good job at being concise and providing readers with basic pieces of information to know what JHBMC is. However, including details that indicate that significance of the hospital, would be especially helpful in allowing readers come across a lead that is not lacking in detail. See above for suggestions on examples of what details to include.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic. Including the history of how the hospital was established, its services and ongoing projects to improve patient experiences are all relevant pieces of information to have an comprehensive article about JHBMC.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, all of the content added is up-to-date. The references section reveals that may sources could be traced back to 2018 or even 2020, especially when speaking about changing statistics such as services and the number of hospital beds inside JHBMC. This showcases that the content is up-to-date. Additionally, the chronological nature of the article sections always leads to present day conditions of JHBMC, whether that be about its name, clinics or current clinic reformation programs.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Although there is no content that does not belong, I feel that there are many additional sections that could be added to the article that are missing. Examples of this include JHBMC and its relationship with the Baltimore community, specifically mentioning how JHBMC is not trusted by many of the lower-income residents. One could also include a section of major community projects commissioned by JHBMC, such as its partnership with faith-based communities to increase health literacy leadership. Another section about major contributions JHBMC made to medicine in terms of research, surgery, etc., could also be included. The editors could also include information about the hospital CEO/leadership over the years. Statistics about how many patients JHBMC treats annually on average, would also be helpful. One could even add rankings of the hospital and specific departments.

Content evaluation

Overall, although the content is recent and relevant, there are many missing pieces of information that could enable this article to be comprehensive and inclusive of the many aspects of JHBMC, such as social or cultural. See above for additional comments.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the added content is neutral. None of the statements use language that indicates a certain opinion or perspective, such as "best," "greatest", or "worst." The content makes an effort to only use factual information about the establishment and current practices of JHBMC, which cannot be refuted easily due to its credible sources.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • I feel that the clinical reforms section of the article heavily represents medical initiatives to improve patient care, without addressing any of the negative controversies that led to establishing multiple projects that were based on improving healthcare to build community trust. Including negative controversies provides better context for readers as to why these clinical reforms came to be, instead of only reading of its existence. Other than that, I think the rest of the article does a great job at not being heavily biased, instead only including factual information and statistics about JHBMS resources.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Although there are no viewpoints overrepresented, I do think there are viewpoints that are underrepresented. This includes the social perspective of how communities within Baltimore view JHBMC. The article has no mention of the relationship between JHBMC, something that is important whether it be negative of positive to help readers understand the role JHBMC plays within Baltimore.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. I would like to reiterate that the neutral tone of the content by sticking to the use of factual information, prevents the article from persuading the reader in favor of a certain position. Readers will only be able to take-away how JHBMC was established and its history due to the operations, history and clinical reform sections, instead of reading article opinions about JHBMC.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, the tone does a good job at being neutral, but could use more representation of various viewpoints. See above for additional comments.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All of the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, such as citing the number of hospital beds, history of JHBMC establishment based on the works of the Maryland Historical Society, etc. However, it is important to note that much of the original content, lacks citations, which should be addressed in further edits. Examples of this can be found in the operations section, where many statements that explain the different departments within JHBMC, lack any type of citations.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • I would argue that the sources are thorough. After scanning through the references section, the article is developed using sources from the Maryland government, Maryland Historical Society, local newspapers, and academic journals. Being able to incorporate all these different types of sources indicates that the references are thorough. Although, more resources ranging from historical accounts/present community papers can fill in content gaps addressed in the contents section of this evaluation.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, sources that need to be current, such as recent projects and statistics on the number of services are updated, with the references suggesting the sources are from 2018-2020. Historical information that is required to explain the development of JHBMC, is kept at the historical accounts of the 1800s to maintain accuracy.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Although most of the links work, including sources 1-6, there is an error that must be fixed for one of the in-text citations. A statement within the operations section ends with the citation (copied from Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center). I think it would be better to just cite the article in the references.

Sources and references evaluation

Overall, great job on source variety and relevancy! See above for additional comments.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content added is concise, clear and easy to understand. The added contents focus on enhancing the already included information in the article, whether that be through better structuring or providing context about the history of JHBMC. The editors make an effort to not use medical jargon when explaining the services of the JHBMC, whether that be while explaining programs or services, which makes the content easy to understand
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There is only one grammatical error in the historical section that uses a comma instead of a period to end the sentence. Other than that, there are no grammatical or spelling errors present within the article.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the content added is well-organized. By restructuring the article to include historical information, current operations and clinical reformations in its separate sections allows readers to follow along the article. By breaking it down to these sections, the content is easily able to convey major points about JHBMC, whether it be how it was named, how many patients it can treat or the steps physicians are taking to improve their care for patients.

Organization evaluation

Overall, the article is well organized. See above for more comments.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes, the article includes images that enhance the understanding of the topic. By including an image of the JHBMC and its location in Baltimore on a map, readers are better able to contextualize the location and proximity of JHBMC.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • No, the image of the map provides no caption as to what is being represented. A caption explaining the map would be more helpful and less confusing as to what readers are looking at. Te image of JHBMC in the lead, also provides no captions.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, the image and media of the map does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Not only are the images public, but they do not violate regulations such as being graphic or inappropriate.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • The map could be placed with a caption in a more appealing way, instead of just being placed out of order beneath the history section to provide better context. The image of JHBMC is perfectly placed in the lead.

Images and media evaluation

The included pictures adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and allow readers to learn more about JHBMC. Maybe one should consider adding pictures of the founders and other important people in JHBMC's history or images of how the architecture changed over the years. See above for additional comments.

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?

New Article Evaluation

This is not a new article, so this evaluation cannot be done.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The added content has improved the overall quality of the article by providing a more comprehensive structure and relevant information on the services of the JHBMC. After checking the edit history of the original article, it is evident that this article has many structural concerns and content gaps that these edits helped to improve by providing more up-to-date sources about the JHBMC operations.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The content maintains a neutral tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. The article's lead does a good job in introducing the topic and I feel as though each section of the article allows for the content to be broken down in an efficient and easily understood manner.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • There are still multiple content gaps that could be addressed in order to offer comprehensive viewpoints on the role and legacy of JHBMC within Baltimore and medicine. This article fails to establish the importance of JHBMC in science and medicine considering the fact that it is highly ranked. The clinical reformations also provide a one-sided view of how JHBMC is improving its procedures. Although the systematic components of this article (grammar, spelling, citations, organization, etc.) are stellar, content can be improved upon. By including a more inclusive history and timeline of significant events within JHBMC, readers will be able to understand the legacy and purpose of JHBMC.

Overall evaluation

Although this article and its edits does a good job at maintaining a neutral tone and incorporating relevant sources, its content could be improved upon. By adding the aforementioned pieces of information, the article is on it way to being complex and comprehensive to provide a multi-faceted view of JHBMC and its legacy both historically, socially and scientifically. See above for comments.