User:Globe17/Etienne Karita/Meticulousonion 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)
 * 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?
 * Yes. It is very descriptive of the subject.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, although it could be condensed some if desired (e.g. is a Rwandan scientist who has been researching HIV in Rwanda since 1994)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Definitely, each sentence summarized (or at least prefaces) the information given in each section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead talks about his work with MTCT but there isn't much detail of it in the article. If there are any specific projects you could add that would give a lot more insight into his work.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is a bit too detailed. I think it could be a bit more condensed, allowing a reader to take a quick glance to see if the article is something they want to read or would be useful in their research.

Lead evaluation
I think you did a great job summarizing information in the lead, but some of it could be a bit extraneous for the introduction. If possible, I think some of the topics could be transferred to the body of the article and expanded on.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Absolutely
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * References appear to be citing the most accurate information on the subject from his own staff profiles
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * None apparent

Content evaluation
The content of your article is a great biography of Etienne. I think to take it to another level you could even check out the individual projects he has worked on and write about those (or even link out to them if they are worthy of their own page).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None
 * 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?
 * Not really

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does a great job of presenting facts of his life without making any suggestions to the effects of his work. If there are any publicized accounts of how his work has improved the country that could have a good place here without breaking neutrality. This article could be tricky as I am sure some of his work was clouded by the genocide, but you were effective at filtering just the biography of Etienne out.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Mostly. Some of the education information is from a single source, but when it is coming from a university's staff page, I think it can be reasonably assumed that it is accurate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there is, however, some research articles available online that may be worth including in his article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Great work finding background information on the subject!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The content is good, but it did seem somewhat repetitive to read as many of the sentences that gave dates began with "In 20xx." To keep it from getting monotonous or list-y it may be helpful to rework some of those sentences.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few cases of words being repeated (I'm guilty of this too when drafting and moving stuff around) so it could use a proofread.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
For a first draft I think you're in pretty good shape!

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
Nothing at the moment, and I know how hard these kind of photos are to locate for free use, but there are some good potential sources out there for fair use images. Creative commons would be a good start (although this is hard for images from news media and such). The library has some pages on how to find images that could be useful.

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?
 * 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. You may also consider adding some additional resources or a see also section. The biography template provides some good ideas for sections to include.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No

New Article Evaluation
You have found good resources to begin an article, I think it could be improved further by finding some more information about the work completed and then linking out to other wikipedia pages (for many other topics).

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
You're in a great place as of right now, I think with a little more refinement this is a great biography of the subject. Once you have polished this article up, it may be worth looking into other articles that you could edit to link to your subject if they were involved.