User:A.Hausker/Epic Systems/Gkim70 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? -> A.Hausker and Tuphoff1
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:A.Hausker/Epic Systems

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead has definitely been improved from the previous lead. It is able to give readers a good idea of what Epic Systems is and its role in healthcare, mostly in America. The improvements included more facts about Epic Systems that sums up the company's prominence. While it is concise, the lead is still on the shorter side, so any general information that is important enough should be considered being moved up to the lead.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

There was a lot of content newly added to the article and no content removed to my knowledge. The content added were up to date, in the past few years, and there seemed to be no errors or missing content that caught the eye. It would be better if more (countries) than the UK and Danish experience could be added, if possible. The Social Responsibility section also needs more content, if it is planned to be kept as a major section in this article. Otherwise, information can be relocated or created into a smaller subsection.

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

The tone is fairly neutral throughout the article, mainly due to the fact that most of the content is factual. Any possible content leaning towards a particular direction are attributed by using "according to" or put under quotations, which was nice.

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?

Sources and references evaluation

The links I have checked all work. They are from various different sources, from news articles to university websites and journals. I found no problems with the sources.

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

There are a few things I'd like to comment on organization. First of all, the "Select Customer Wins" sections doesn't seem distinctive enough to have its own section, when comparing it to "Product and Market." It can definitely be merged into the Product and Market section, seeing that the second half of the product and market section that describes Epic System's cooperation/partnerships with other organizations or universities can be put under the same category of information as the content in select customer wins. Second, some content present in the Concerns section aren't really concerns and can be moved into another section as more general information, such as "In September 2017, Epic announced Share Everywhere, which allows patients to authorize any provider who has internet access to view their record in Epic and to send progress notes back.[35] Share Everywhere was named Healthcare Dive's "Health IT Development of the Year" in 2017.[36]". This shouldn't be in the concerns section, as it isn't apparent whether it would be a concern.

Images and Media

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?

Images and media evaluation

There aren't many images, but considering Epic Systems is just a corporation, this is understandable. It would be better to have some more photos, maybe of Epic Systems centers and buildings or of the medical record websites and other evidence of its prominence in hospitals. The captions were good.

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

Main improvements need to be made in organization, as pointed out in the organization evaluation. Other than that, just add more content, especially on the shorter sections.