User:Ctrlaledlt/Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS/Mathewlm9447 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? Ctrlaledlt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ctrlaledlt/Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS

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?

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation:
Good amount of content added. There is a few parts of Global HIV data I would remove because they don't particularly pertain to data about HIV. These parts are the third and fourth paragraphs about discrimination and AVERT because they don't provide any data about HIV, perhaps they could fit somewhere else because they are still well written. All the data is current numbers within the last few years which is good. A few sentences here and there sound like you are making conclusions or statements without providing sources so I would just watch out for that.

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:
This is partly related to my last point. There are just a few sentences that make claims that are not necessarily wrong but they are claims without anything to back them up nonetheless. These were also mostly all in the third and fourth paragraphs of the Global HIV data. You should also be weary of using persuading language as some paragraphs sound like you are trying to convince the reader of something.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation:
Most of the information is from fact sheets which are secondary sources because they pull data from other sources so that all looks good. I'd maybe try to find another meta analysis or systemic review just to add some variation from the fact sheets. You also have some sources listed more than once in the citations which you don't need. All the other sources seem to be current and from good places.

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 is a little problem with the organization. I would move some things around between the two main sections you have, but I would also look at what you are writing about too. You have some things other than HIV data in the Global HIV data section and some facts in the research section. Overall though, everything looks very organized and professional. Also there are some missing commas in the facts on the first section.

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:
No Images Added

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:
N/A

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:
Overall a good addition to the HIV/AIDS article. It adds a lot of current information and facts, as well as most current research into HIV. I would focus on organizing and making the tone sound a little more neutral but I think the content is good.