User:Lf266/Roy Mugerwa/Globe17 Peer Review

General info

 * Reviewing the work of User Lf266.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lf266/New sandbox

Lead
Lead evaluation

I think the addition to the lead is good. A lot of the new content added was focused in the career section, and that is also what was added in the lead. The lead is still concise and does not repeat any information or go too in depth, but it is still very clear what the article is about and what Dr. Mugerwa's accomplishments were. The lead touches on the "Background and education" and "Career" sections, but not the personal life section as much, but that is appropriate because that is the least focused on section in my opinion. I think the addition to the lead gives a more full picture of what is added to the article.

Content evaluation
All the content is relevant to the topic and it gave more detail and context to the article. There was no content that is new that is unnecessary or outdated. Everything that was added to the article just builds upon what is already in the published article. One thing that I think could be updated is in the "Career" section, the first sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 echoed each other, so there might be a way to combine those paragraphs together, or just change the lead sentence of paragraph 3 so that is adds something new instead of repeating paragraph 2.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content seems neutral and pretty factual in nature. A lot of the new content builds upon the successes and career of Dr. Mugerwa, but I do not feel like it was biased or trying to convince me how great of a person he was.

Sources and references evaluation
In the beginning of paragraph two under the "Career" section I like the information and context that was added, but I'm not sure where the information is coming from, specifically talking about the second sentence of that paragraph (the confirmed HIV patients in Mulago Hospital). I wasn't sure if that sentence was part of the citation that is after the third sentence or not, so it may help to add a citation there just to be clear where that information is from. I think the sources that were added are very appropriate and reliable and I like that a couple of books were added to the source list. I'm not sure if the WHO document (source 6) would be considered a primary source or not, but it is only cited once so I think that it would be possible to find that information elsewhere if it doesn't fit with the guidelines of a secondary source. All the links work and the sources are current.

Organization evaluation
The content is well-written. I also think the edits that were made to make the old content more concise improved the article well without taking away any of the information that was already published. I think the content is well organized. I am not sure if making a sub-section that focused on his HIV work under the "Career" section would be beneficial, but there is a large portion of that section on HIV so it may be something to consider. Also just a small note that there is no formal "References" section on the sandbox page, but I know this is being added to another article so that may not be very important.

Images and media evaluation
There were no images added to the article.

Overall evaluation
I do think that the edits make the article more complete. Especially with the "Career" section, the information that was added provides a lot more interesting detail and goes more in depth. There is more context for his HIV work and there is a global piece added when Workshop on AIDS presented by the WHO is introduced, and I think it's really important to include information that shows Dr. Mugerwa interacting on a global scale (increases his notability I think). Overall to improve would be to mesh more of the older content in with what was added in the "Career" section. There was a lot of good content added there, but it needs to be more incorporated with what is already in the article. Overall a really strong addition.