User:Meticulousonion/Bila M. Kapita/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? (Meticulousonion)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Meticulousonion/Bila M. Kapita

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: It seems like there is no article about Bila M. Kapita as of yet, so this draft will create the first lead for the article. The lead at the moment is a very general statement that could fit into many other doctors in Kinshasa as well. I believe speaking about the person's specific research efforts of HIV/AIDS in Africa would make the lead more compelling.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, but I also think it could be expanded more to discuss the uniqueness of the person in particular.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes, HIV/AIDS is the main focus, which the article touches on.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: I don't believe so.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: I think it could be more detailed - maybe my personal draft is too detailed(?)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes, biography and work relevant to HIV/AIDS research. It also seems there is a section for published work which is a great idea!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, it is all new(?). It uses good sources as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: There is some uncertainty and missing citations in the HIV/AIDS section (mostly), but I believe that it is simply due to it being a work in progress.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes, well done!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: Nope, tone and balance overall seems right on.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Nope.
 * 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?: It seems so, not just directly in the paragraph. It seems the user is waiting to input all the citations at a later date (using placeholders).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Yes/no - currently the user has only inputted book references (with ISBNs), I understand that the user has more sources, if they are posted I believe they would be most likely reflect the most available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?: I believe sources for this type of work shouldn't all be current, but yes the user used current sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: I would suggest removing the uppermost references section as the wiki lists the references when you add it as citations. At the moment you have two references sections.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, great job. It is concise and also easy to follow (the outline also seems to have worked well).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: Not the best at sniffing grammar errors out, but seems good(?).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes, I might suggest breaking down the biography section into the headings present within the section. I've seen both, and they both seem to work, but it might be easier to follow along if you are planning to add lots of more data.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: An image is cited but does not show up on the draft(?). The cited image does work well with the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?: N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: Yes - getty images (amazed you found an image of the person!).
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: N/A

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 (username: Muhyul Go), above is my peer review. I just wanted to mention I generally like what you have and I am excited for the potential this article has to be something great! Your tone and balance seem to be the strength, it is simply lacking the citations and polish. Keep it up!