User:Lxy80/Christine Obbo/Muhyul Go 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? (Lxy80)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lxy80/Christine Obbo

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: It does not seem so, but I also don't see a reason why it should be, as the one that was there before seem to do it's job.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Well balanced between the two.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes - it focuses specifically about her work with HIV/AIDS.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, it also seems to be edited by multiple other individuals which is great!
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?L I would suggest including a HIV/AIDS specific section in Career and expanding on this section more.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes, very factual and straight up.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: Nope.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Maybe expand on her work highlighting the social issues of HIV/AIDS in Uganda.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: Nope.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Yes, the references seem to check out.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: I feel like there could be more as there's only 3 references so far but they're great!
 * Are the sources current?: Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes. (Maybe expand on the google scholar link to list some of Christine Obbo's specific works).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, information presented seem cohesive overall.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: Maybe remove the comma after the University of Wisconsin in the lead section?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes, if you add lots of more information, it might be important to break it down more as the person seems to focus on a variety of content, not just HIV/AIDS.

Images and Media: N/A
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?

For New Articles Only: N/A
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?

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
Hi! This is Bryan An (Muhyul Go). I've peer reviewed your article by looking at the changes you've personally made into the article as well as your sandbox! Seems pretty great in general, I might suggest including more of her published work and talking about those in the career section. I've seen other users even plan to list all their person's work (maybe not go into that much if there's a lot), but in general the tone and balance seem great and am looking forward to what else you add to the article!