User:Hardick.2/Project SIDA/Globe17 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User Hardick.2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hardick.2/Project SIDA

Lead evaluation
There isn't really a formal lead section. I think the information under the first section that is taken from the already published article does act as a good lead for the article. That section acts as a very broad overview of what Project SIDA is but I think it is pretty effective in covering the basics about each section without going into too much detail. The draft isn't completely finished, but I think as the last section on "Termination" develops, it might be worth it to expand on that topic just a little bit more in the lead.

Content evaluation
All of the content that has been added or is outlined to be added is relevant to the topic. There is a lot more to be added to the article than what is already published, and I think all of the new sections give a lot more valuable insight and background to Project SIDA. I really liked the "Conception" section to explain how Project SIDA began and think that it adds a lot of really great historical context to the article. The fourth sentence of that section ("At the request of...") was a little confusing to read the first time, so I'm not sure if that can be reworded but it did take a few rereads to understand it. There is not any content that doesn't belong in the article, but I think that the beginning of the History section doesn't need to be extremely in-depth, because to me that isn't a huge focus of the article (although I could be wrong). Everything that is in the outline to be added seems like a good addition to the article and will make it a lot more informative than what is published currently. Also I like that there are already some citations created for what is outlined. While I can't read those sections since they aren't finished, having those citations to me shows that the information is notable and has at least some importance to the topic.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content that has been added seems neutral. The content that has already been developed past the outline is really just factual, so it doesn't really have a chance to persuade the reader at all. I am interested to read the "Role of the Zairian Government" section when it is drafted because I think that will provide an important view point that is more non-Western focused. The few sections that might have the potential to create some bias may be the "International Presence" and the "Legacies and Challenges". In my opinion, it might be easier to seem biased when talking about all the contributions of Project SIDA, but I know those sections are not finished on this sandbox.

Sources and references evaluation
There are sources that have been added that I think are reliable and seem to add more variety. The links do work on the sources. I noticed that there were a couple sources on the already published article that are not in the sandbox, so I'm not sure if the information that came from them overlap in a different source or not. The "Scientific Outcomes" section seems to be missing some citations, but that is also from the original article so I wasn't sure if those citations were just lost when transferring the article to the sandbox or not. Also, under the "Role of the Zairian Government" section, there are primary sources mentioned. I don't know what the context of those sources are yet but just something to watch for.

Organization evaluation
The content is all well-written. The only section I struggled a bit with in the "Conception" paragraph, which I mentioned above. I really think that the sections that have been added improve the article and it seems that this will be a lot more informative for others. I am really excited to see the article as the rest of the outline is expanded upon.

Images and media evaluation
No images added.

Overall evaluation
I think that this article is going to improve a lot with this draft. There is clearly a lot of information on Project SIDA that is not currently on the published article, and this draft fills a lot of the gaps. I like the "Conception" section because it gives a lot more context on Project SIDA and I am really excited to see the other sections as they expand. Under the "Leadership" section, there is a question which I assume is about merging that section with the "Conception" section. I personally think that it should stay its own section just based on the small outline, but I have less knowledge on that, so if there isn't a lot of information in that section I don't think it would be wrong to merge those together. Overall really well done article and I'm excited to see it added to the current article!