User talk:Hsim2/Max Brödel

Hi!

I filled out the Peer Review form on your article. I hope you find my comments helpful.

Mtesta4 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

MH final comments

This is looking pretty close to done! However, to make sure you've added enough to the article, I'd like you to dig a little deeper on your sources before you submit your final version, due May 8. Specifically, I'd suggest you add more academic citations where possible, and to make sure absolutely everything has a citation - especially at the ends of subsections, don't leave facts hanging. This doesn't mean replacing the citations you have, as newspaper and blog citations are valuable too, but adding more links to academic articles would make this piece more useful as a springboard for future research. For example, you may be able to find more academic literature on the use of the carbon dust technique - start with the Michelle Kim article and try to figure out who she's citing, then look at them.

Otherwise, the organizational changes look solid, and you've done a good job linking across Wikipedia and to other sites. I'm looking forward to seeing the final version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 16:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

MH comments

You've set yourselves a particular challenge by picking an article that was already fairly detailed - for that reason, you'll need to revise the article more thoroughly in order to make the article your own.

1. There's not a great deal you can do with the biographical sections, but consider going back through and ensuring that all the details are relevant to the overall message of the article (does the fact that he and his wife married in part due to their similar musical interests contribute to our understanding of him, for instance?) Similarly, remove any elaborate phrases and redundancies (if he arrived in January, we already know he arrived in the winter, for instance).

2. The 'Work with Dr. Howard Kelly' section could stand more thorough referencing and more detail. What is your source, for instance, for saying that Brodel 'worked closely with Kelly' during the illustrating process? How do we know his medical research was independent and 'painstaking'? What forms did his experiments take? In this section, it is also notable that you rely mostly on his own characterizations of his work. Can you find other sources corroborating his statement that he performed 'original study'? If so, cite them here.

3. Please add references to the first paragraph of the 'War Years' section - otherwise, it's not clear how we know when his mother died, that he became more introverted, or that he lost faith in his medical illustration program.

4. There are a few statements in the 'Death' and 'Carbon dust technique' sections that need clarification. Was the study of the ear published posthumously? If so, by who? What exactly does it mean that the carbon dust technique has a 'close collaboration with physicians' - are they able to be involved in the carbon dust illustration process in a way that they can't be with other techniques? Provide more detail and clarity with these statements.

5. The 'Art as Applied to Medicine' section could benefit from a sub-heading distinguishing the information about the present-day department. The list of people he influenced also needs work: although it doesn't appear that any of them have their own Wikipedia pages, at least list the full names of their institutions and link these to the appropriate pages. If possible, it would also be useful to expand on their relationship with Brodel - were any of them his students? Or did they just read his works? An image (of the modern school, maybe?) could also be useful for this section.

6. Think about how the 'Notable textbooks' section could be more user-friendly. I would suggest adding the full publication information and, where possible, links to online free-access copies. Operative Gynecology, for instance, is available through Archive.org.

7. I'm not sure what the section about his portrait adds to our understanding of Brodel - either justify this more thoroughly or consider working the information in elsewhere. The same is true for telling the reader about the archive numbering system. Always consider why a Wikipedia reader would want to a given piece of information. With that in mind, is there anything that could be added to the Brodel Archives section that would be useful?

Also, please post a comment to the Talk page of the original article explaining that you're drafting a new version of this article for a WikiEducation class, providing a short summary of the changes you've made (adding new sections, citations, etc.) so that when you begin moving this across in a couple of weeks, it won't come as a surprise.

Read your peer reviews and continue to revise in the sandbox (all your old drafts are saved automatically); let me know if you have any questions. I hope these comments are helpful as you start your next revision! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 23:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)