User:Io91/Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS/An739 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?
 * Io91
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Io91/Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, they added extra content to the lead to reflect their additions.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead clearly reflects the topic, including their additions to the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but this was already included and was not edited by the students.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead only includes information present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, but includes all necessary details.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is well done, and I don't see any need for changes.

Misconceptions about HIV in the US Section
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is accurate and reflects the common misconceptions about people with HIV.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content that is added is recent and reflects the best knowledge about the topic at the moment.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, the content included is all relevant.

Content evaluation
The content in this section is great. I think in terms of edits and additions, you could benefit from adding a sentence at the beginning to summarize the misconceptions you discuss in the section and to clarify that the misconceptions are generally about how it is transmitted and the risks. The beginning feels a bit abrupt, so I think clarifying what misconceptions exist before you dispel them will make it a bit more clear and read better.

Violence Against Persons Living with HIV Section
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the portion about the relationship between childhood trauma and engaging in unsafe sexual practices is a bit confusing. The section is more about violence against people living with HIV, and the part about childhood trauma seems to be more about how violence can lead to HIV. It is a slight difference, but I think this section could be improved it you focus more on the relationship between violence against people who already have HIV and how that affects people's willingness to seek out treatment rather than how violence in youth can lead to HIV. It is also fairly female-centric, which I think is important to include because there is often an assumption that HIV is only/most commonly seen in gay men, but I think it would be more neutral and cover more ground if information was included about all genders and sexual orientations because violence against anyone with HIV can dissuade a person from seeking treatment or help.

Content evaluation
Overall, I think the content in this section is headed in the right direction, but some tweaks to keep it a bit more on-topic can make it even stronger.

Psychological Impact of HIV Discrimination
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think the first paragraph of this section is important to include, but it is a bit peripheral to the topic of discrimination. The first paragraph touches more on the psychological impacts of a HIV diagnosis rather than discrimination, as the rest of the section does. However, I think it is important to add, and could perhaps go somewhere else in the article. You could also edit the header to include "psychological impacts of HIV diagnosis and discrimination," so that the section feels a bit more coherent. I also think an introductory sentence should be included to state the section's intentions so the reader knows what will be included in the section.

Content evaluation
Overall, I think the content in this section fits, but the header could be edited or some information could be moved around to make it more clear what the section is about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the claims are generally scientific and are based on research.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, viewpoints are equally represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the sections are scientific and based on research.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance are good. It is scientific and does not espouse an opinion.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The content is backed up by a reliable secondary source. However, I think you could be a bit more generous with citing those sources. Some statements in the article are not cited, and it is better to think there are too many citations than to not have information cited. Specifically, I think the misconceptions section could include more specific citations because the information is scientific and technical, so readers should be able to track all information to a specific, reliable source, especially because this section hopes to dispel misconceptions. I also think the violence section needs more citations, and it could benefit from some other sources to get a more wholistic view of the topic.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, I think you chose good sources, but they could be cited more often throughout the article, especially given the scientific nature of the topic and the broad misunderstanding of the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I think the content is well-written, but there could be some improvements to organization. I think an introductory sentence at the beginning of each section to provide an overview of the section could improve this article and make it easier to read and understand. The sections begin a bit abruptly, and I think an introduction could help make it flow better.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors that I caught. I think some transitional words, like "also," and phrases could be removed or changed. For example, at the beginning of the misconceptions section, I think "in reality" could be removed or substituted for something clearer.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * As mentioned above, I think organization could use some improvement to make it flow a bit better. The content is excellent and very important, so adding some introductions and being more clear about how the content relates to the heading can help make it even better.

Organization evaluation
I think organization will tie this article together and perfect it. The content is great, but a few transitional sentences and introductions can help make it very clear for the reader.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * NA
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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?
 * NA
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * NA
 * 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?
 * NA
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * NA

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added has significantly improved the overall quality of the article. It is more up to date and covers the topic more holistically.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added is more recent and covers the topic in a more scientific way.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content added could be cited more frequently and organized in a more effective way, but the actual content is excellent.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think you did a wonderful job, and I am excited to read it once it is done!