User:Routarchita/Nzila Nzilambi/InnocentSplit 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? Routarchita
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Routarchita/Nzila Nzilambi

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes. A lead is present.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The lead provides a sentence with which to frame the researcher.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article currently only has a lead and a contributions section so this is not yet necessary.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No; the lead currently provides the identifying information of the researcher and where they worked.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise however may need more elaboration as the article continues to be added to.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article is very concise and focuses solely on the researcher and their contributions to Project Sida.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The cited articles are a bit outdated (from the late 80s) however I believe the writer is still working and will likely continue to append.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that the contributions to Project Sida / HIV initiatives will need to be expanded upon to achieve "notability" but this is already likely in the author's plans.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The article is very neutral and balanced in its presentation of the facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Reliable sources via The Lancet and one other reputable journal.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe there is likely more literature on the topic however it appears that the author is still working on expanding the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The articles are rather dated, with the most recent having been published in 1989.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They both work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the syntax is concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Not yet organized; could benefit from a table of contents + sectioning as the article continues to expand.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

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?
 * Not yet supported by 2-3 secondary sources; likely will need more information to achieve "notability"
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does not appear very exhaustive yet; currently only 2 sources listed.
 * 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?
 * I think as more information is added, infoboxed, images, section headings, tables of contents, etc. will be added to match other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * No; could benefit from a "see also" section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the author has definitely made a start in bringing light to the work of Nzila Nzilambi.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Has started to lay the groundwork for the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Additional information, table of contents, images, a "see also" section, sectioning, other organizational methods.