User:Hardick.2/Project SIDA/Sora360 Peer Review

General info

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

Lead evaluation
Good job on describing Projet SIDA and its purpose.

You may want to mention a brief overview on the work they did and their findings in the lead, and more brief general descriptions on the article's major sections.

Content evaluation
Good job staying relevant to the topic.

In the History section, I'm not sure if it would be relevant to include info on the background of AIDS in Africa. If it is already written, maybe something brief would be sufficient. It may help to add a See Also section at the end that links "HIV/AIDS in Africa" Wikipedia article.

Tone and balance evaluation
Good job on neutrality. Lots of factual information.

Sources and references evaluation
The links worked. Thorough sources - reliable secondary source from journals and textbooks.

Citations are missing in the lead section.

Organization evaluation
Seems like a lot of information and the layout of the organization makes sense so far. Clear.

Grammar -- "U.S." - United States spelled out (in the first paragraph)

New Article Evaluation
Good use of peer-edited secondary sources to make the article considered to be "notable."

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation
I thought this was a great start. The one thing that stood out was the organization and the layout felt logical - and it's easy to find information on the different aspects of Projet SIDA. Another strength was the amount of information. Looks like there's a lot you have found. Keep up the good work.