User:Globe17/Etienne Karita/Routarchita 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)
 * Global17
 * 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. The lead is present.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It focuses on who Etienne Karita is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. Lead highlights HIV work and recent work.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes. Lead is short, but still informative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. Highlights on the history of the person, as well as the work they have completed.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes. References include pieces from 2018.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No. Article gives a good summary of both the history and the work done by the person. More information on each could be added, but article emphasizes important information.

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. All content is purely information and nothing is biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Many references including Rwanda Today.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. References information directly on the person, as well as HIV in Africa and the recent work of the person.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. There are references from 2018.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. There is not too much information on a single topic, making it easy to read.
 * 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. A content section is added, separating the information in clear sections.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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. There are many references added.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes. Many different types of resources stating different information.
 * 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. It includes the history of the person and then their work. This is something very common. Images can be added to help.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No. A "see also" section can be added.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There is lots of information that educates the reader about this person, definitely improving the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content gives a clear explanation of the timeline of the individual, allowing the reader to learn general information about the person and their life.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More information can be added with specific details about the individual and their work.