User:Alyce26/Souleymane Mboup/HistoryandLiterature 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)
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Mostly
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * concise

Lead evaluation
This is a very concise and clear lead that tells us who Mboup is and why he is important. My only worry is that you mention he is a part of the Armed Forces of Senegal in the very first sentence, but there is no expansion on this later in the article. If it is an important part of who he is, it should be expanded later like when he joined.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Missing army info

Content evaluation
Overall the content is wonderfully descriptive and relevant. There is also a lot of context around his discovery of HIV-2 which helps the reader understand its importance.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Mostly
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Terms like "cutting-edge" research seem slightly biased towards Mboup. if you use phrases like these, be sure to follow it up with why the research was cutting edge. Other than this, I feel the article is very neutral and professional-sounding.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No--the awards do not have citations
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are a lot of sources here which shows in-depth research and a wide variety of viewpoints. The article is all well-backed up except for the awards, which are just missing citations.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The sub-sections are very helpful for reading this article. I really like the flow of this article as it seems to be organized chronologically.

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?

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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Very exhaustive, yes
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation
It looks really good! This is a well-written overview of Mboup's career.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * organization and shows the importance of Mboup as a researcher
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding personal life information--is he married? Does he have kids?

Overall evaluation
This article is a really detailed and concise portrait of an academic and a researcher. Great job!