User:EmDom521/Fred Mhalu/Alyce26 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? EmDom521
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmDom521/sandbox?

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead is concise and gives me a good overview of who the article is about.
 * 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, but just the last sentence.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead looks really good overall. You include a good overview of what the article is about. The one thing I would suggest is to include some more information about the lead's last sentence (Mhalu's current work) in the "Career" section, as long as it isn't too repetitive.

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?
 * Some

Content evaluation
The content all gives me a good understanding about who Mhalu is and his importance in HIV research. I would say that maybe some content missing would be what he is currently working on in the "Career" section. I think that because you included brief information on that in the lead you should mention it in more detail in the article. For the "TANSWED" section, I understand that because there is not article on it you want to give readers an overview to better understand the work Mhalu did. I would say though that the article is about Fred Mhalu and most of that section focuses on what TANSWED was. I recommend that you include more information on Mhalu's role/work with TANSWED to balance out the content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * 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
The tone of the article is neutral and does not convey any one sided biases,

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * 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
All of your sources look good and there are enough citations to back up the information in the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Career section is a bit logn
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Mhalu was a professor at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, a Dean of the School of Medicine, and the Director of Postgraduate Studies and Research at Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania ever since 1977.
 * I would reword it because it's lengthy and I can't tell what "ever since 1977" refers to. Right now it seems to refer to all parts of the sentence and in that case the tense is incorrect.
 * His main area of study revolved around infectious diseases and intervention.
 * should be "revolves"
 * Ever since 1986, he was a main contributor to the information about AIDS in Africa.
 * This should either not be in past tense (change to "he has been"), or you should remove "ever since"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization looks good overall. Just a suggestion, but it might be helpful to break the "career" section into subsections. Also, watch out for grammar and the tenses you use.

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?
 * 10 sources -- for the length of the article, the amount is pretty exhaustive
 * 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, many

New Article Evaluation
This article looks really good and contains all of the necessary content for a new article.

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?
 * Shows the importance of Mhalu in his field really well and contains a lot of information on his career
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * review some of the grammar, include more info about Mhalu's work with TANSWED

Overall evaluation
This article is overall very strong and gave me a good picture of Mahlu and his work. Good job!