User:Alyce26/Souleymane Mboup/EmDom521 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? Alyce26
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Alyce26/Souleymane Mboup

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
- I like how the lead section is a short and sweet glimpse of why Mboup is important. I also like how the introductory sentence states his roles during his life, and focused on Mboup. Great job at mentioning how he was on the team to identify HIV-2 because that is a major achievement in his life. Maybe you can add some more information to the lead section about his teaching or prior research to introduce that information present n the article as well. The last sentence of the lead is not present in the rest of the article, so I would maybe add that into a section of your article wherever you see fit.

Overall, I really like your lead section because it is concise and highlights important aspects of Mboup.

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
- The content you are adding is a good overview of the important accomplishments of Mboup's life. I like how you add some biographical information and then dive into how he helped discover HIV-2. I think that is a very important part of his life and makes him notable, so I like how you are emphasizing and adding a little more information to that part. Your content seems up to date and I like how you include early information, as well as present information. I would like to see where you go with the identifying HIV-2 article section. Overall, I think you are doing a great job using your content to focus on Mboup.

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
- I think the tone is neutral and you use words to emphasize importance, so I wouldn't say that you use language that would persuade your readings to think a specific way. I think you did a good job at using words that were neutral and phrasing sentences to avoid bias.

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
- From looking at the sources you used, I think they are reliable sources. You did a good job at not using primary sources like blog posts, and instead focused on using information from journals and websites that are secondary sources. The sources you used for biographical information seem up to date and accurate, and the journals you used reflect the science advancements during that time period. Your Wikilinks work and you use them in a way that will help your readers gain more information.

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
- Your sentences are very well written and easy to read. The formatting of your sentences helped me easily understand the information you are trying to present. I found no grammar mistakes. The sections are organized, and I especially like how you are splitting up into sub-sections for the collaboration than HIV-2. To me and the readers, this hihglihgrs that this was an important part of his career.

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
- The article doesn't include any images, but if you included a picture of Mboup, it could be cool for your audience to see what he looked like. Just make sure if you do add a picture, you add a caption and cite it so you don't have a copyright violation.

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
- Mboup meets the notability requirements by being on the team that discovers HIV-2. He is mentioned in reliable sources like websites that aren't blogs. I think you did a really good job at using a variety of sources for balance, and not too focused on one source. You have an early education section which is similar to other articles, but I like how you are creating your own section by highlighting the collaboration of discovering HIV-2. Nice job using Wikilinks, and I would recommend using external links to make your article 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
- I think the content you are adding makes the article complete by sharing biographical information as well as his achievements. It is sharing many aspects of his life. I would also try to focus on other important aspect's of his life too so you don't have too much information just on him discovering HIV-2. The strengths of this article is you include really good biographical information and sharing career aspects that are of particular importance. Even though him discovering HIV-2 is really important, I would also try to explain some other important research that he has done to balance the article.