User:Lolanallie123/Leickness Simbayi/EmDom521 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? Lolanallie123
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lolanallie123/Leickness Simbayi

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
- I think your lead section is really good because it is short and concise, but includes necessary information to give your readers a bit of background. I think your first sentence is really good and contains beneficial information. The lead section doesn't really include a brief description of the article's major sections, so I would add some information about his professor career. If you add a little bit more information that is included in your article, it would be a nice summary for the article. The lead is very concise, and I would add a little bit more information but not too detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
- The content added is relevant and you did a good job at providing information of Simbayi's life and research achievements. I really liked how you included information from the past, as well as more recent information to provide the readers the most information possible. I think that everything you have added in your article has a purpose and is beneficial to the article as a whole. I also really liked how you used some statistics to draw the biography together.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
- I think you did a great job at providing neutral content and keeping a non-biased tone. It may be a little difficult to be biased about the biography of a researcher, but you did a good job at not overrepresenting one side and providing as much information as you could.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
- I think you did a great job at finding reliable sources to find your information from. You found some good secondary sources like journals and organization's websites. I think some sentences in your article could use some citations, like the first sentence of the research section under career. The links work and the Wikilinks are very beneficial to help the reader understand as much as possible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
- I think the content is very well-written and concise. You don't overwhelm the reader with too much detail, but you provide enough detail that the reader isn't confused or lost. I could not find any spelling or grammatical errors. All of your sentences are formatted in a way that's easy to read. The content is also well organized and broken down into appropriate sections.I would maybe rename the Memberships section to Affiliations.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
- There are no images but I would maybe recommend finding a picture of Simbayi because it would be cool for your readers to see what he looks like. If you could find some pictures of him from his appearances on the media, I think that would be cool too. Make sure you add a caption and appropriately cite the picture if you do add them.

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

New Article Evaluation
- Simbayi is a notable person because of his publications on psychology and co-editing an important book, so he meets the notability requirement. I think you use a good list of sources, and use not too many but not too few. It's also really good how you use a variety of sources, not just heavily focused on journals. Your article follows the pattern of other articles by including his career and research, but I think it is really cool and unique how you made a section for his appearances in the media. You use Wikilinks very beneficially, and I like how you included as See Also section to give your audience more information.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
- The article seems like very good quality and you include necessary information so your readers can learn from the biography of Simbayi. The strengths of this article is providing well-rounded information that gives you audience some background and guidance as they read the article. In other words, the reader doesn't have to know a lot about HIV in South Africa to really understand the article. You explain information in a way that is clear and concise. My other advice for improvement is to add a little more detail from the rest of your article into the lead section.

Response to Peer Review
Thank you for reading and reviewing! I am glad that you found the article easy to read and containing the right amounts of information. The lead has been tricky for me to write so thank you for your advice there. I definitely agree about memberships and changed that to affiliations. I will double check all of my citations and make sure that everything is cited as you suggested! I also agree with the image piece - I am going to try to find one that abides by copyright rules. Thank you again! Lolanallie123 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)