User:Marcus17620/Jaime Bayona/Garcia.nina Peer Review

General info
Topic: Jaime Bayona

User (username): Marcus17620

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marcus17620/Jaime Bayona

Lead
Guiding questions:

The Lead reflects the new content and does include a brief background which was useful although could be extended by possibly another sentence or two just to introduce Bayona outside of his career. I do like that the background did include a brief description that touches on the sections created. This information was also present throughout the article and while it was detailed it did not seem overly detailed where it was an issue to read. Rather the details were concise and meaningful throughout.

Content
Guiding questions:

The content added is relevant and seems up to date although if there are current studies Bayona has taken part in it would be nice to consider adding those.. All of the content belongs but I would suggest adding more dates to the piece so that the viewer can have a timeline to grasp onto. I also think the inclusions of Bayona's early life and possible present day activities unless deceased would be interesting to add. Although since I am aware that this is not a project that has unlimited time, I think it is good and relevant in presenting the sections you included.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The content was relatively neutral although there existed some wording in the background that was more in favor of Bayona. This was mostly due to the noting that he is a talented physician rather than just noting his title alone, although I do not think it is problematic enough to be concerned for as the rest of the piece maintains its neutrality. No viewpoints appear to be underrepresented or overrepresented by the user.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

The new content is backed up by reliable sources which thoroughly reflect the sections created for the topic. The sources are up to date and diverse in its author usage. The links provided also work and are placed in proper context with the material presented.

Organization
Guiding questions:

The content is well written and easy to understand the topic at hand. There was no notable grammatical errors and the content is will organized though its sections. Although I do find the changing the section title "demonstrating success is possible" to something more in line with the later efforts in Peru in relations to the MDR-TB would be more clearer.

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

Not applicable as no images were added.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

The article fits Wikipedia's notability requirements in relation to its use of sources that are independent of the subject. The list of sources appears extensive and are relative to the subject. The article uses section headings which is similar to other articles, although it does not link to other Wikipedia articles and only its sources. This does not seem problematic as it is still a new article and is more focused on being built so I do not find it to be a major concern.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions

The content has added more to the article overall, although since it seems to have been created recently it would need more information most likely outside of the assignment to complete it. The content overall provides a good foundation for more work to be added on in the future. It is well written and provides meaningful information that leaves the reader with a lot to take away from. As previously mentioned, I think more dates should be considered to help create a timeline along with more background, but as there is much emphasis on the "Demonstrating success is possible" section, I would consider adding a conclusion to it if that is possible.