User:Globe17/Etienne Karita/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? Globe17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Globe17/Etienne Karita

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 think your lead section is very good because it is short and concise. It also mentions the important information and is a good summary of the rest of the article. I think you could make the sentences a little bit more clear because some sentences are too broad. If you add some details to the second sentence without diving too much into detail, it would help the readers understand more of what you are saying. The first sentence is a little hard to read grammatically, but if you split it into two sentences, it would be more clear to understand. But the information you include in the first sentence is great. I think the lead section lays out the sections very nicely, but I would maybe include a little bit of information of how he "is still doing active research" (as stated in the first sentence). I think your lead is concise and that is good, but maybe a little concise in the beginning. If you add a bit more detail to give the readers some more direction, it will be really good.

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
- I think your content is relevant to the topic. You did a very good job at keeping the focus of your article of Karita and his scientific achievements. In the Recent Work section, I would maybe provide an explanation in parentheses of what SANTHE is. That way, your readers won't be confused. I always think it's a good idea to provide more information than you think because you never know what your audience does and doesn't know. I like how you provided information about his earlier work, and then provided more recent information. I think that is a very good balance and provides your readers with the most information possible. I think you aren't missing content and I also don't think you have content belongs.

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 you did a very good job at keeping a neutral tone and not proposing one position over another. I could not find any areas where tone was not neutral. The content you have doesn't include information that has more than one position since this a biographical article, so no claims were biased / overrepresented / underrepresented. I think you did a really good job at providing information about Karita in a neutral tone and there is nothing that I see that needs fixed. Great job!

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 sources you use are all reliable; great job using peer-reviewed medical journals, organization's websites, and school's websites. You also did a really great job at not depending on only one article and used a variety of reliable sources. Your links to the sources work, but I would recommend also including Wikilinks to other wikipedia articles. This will help your reader understand your article even more and be able to educate themselves on the topic more easily.

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
- I think your content is very well written; it is concise and easy to follow. There are a couple of run-on sentences that make it more difficult to read, but other than that everything looks good. I would reword the first sentence because it is a little confusing to read. I think you did a really great job at splitting your information into sections that make sense. I really like how you split up earlier research work and recent work.

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 are no images added but I would recommend adding a picture of Karita. It could be cool for your audience to see what he looked like. Make sure if you do add a picture, you add a caption and correctly cite it.

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
- Karita does meet the notability requirements because he did a lot of research for HIV and also was head of Rwanda's National AIDS Control Program. You use a good list of resources that's not too long or too short. You use a variety of resources that provides the most neutral information and use different kinds of sources, from websites to journals. That's good to do because it keeps your information well-rounded. You provide a similar patter to other articles by stating his education and research work, but I like how you did your own feature and split his work into earlier and recent work. I would recommend using Wikilinks or external links in the body of your article to make it 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
- The article seems very good quality by providing biographical information about Karita that is reliable. You are short and concise, which is really good because you do not want to make the article too long and include unneeded information. The strengths is that you include a good amount of information to provide your readers with some background on the content you talk about. Every sentence in your article has a purpose. The only thing I would recommend is to make a section that includes some notable works. This can provide your readers more guidance to seek his work, and also will let readers know that he is notable.