User:RyanMcGeo/HIV/AIDS in the United States/SCHILLGM9363 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? RyanMcGeo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:RyanMcGeo/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It does not seem that my peer edited the lead at all in his article.
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation
As far as I could tell, all of the content that was added was relevant and up to date. I did not notice any content that did not belong within this article or any specific information that had been excluded from the section the author stated that they would be editing.

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 over represented, or underrepresented? The additions don't seem to be incredibly biased in any particular way, though it does focus on specifically what doctors were thinking. This makes sense, however, because this is what he said he was going to focus on.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources seem to cover a wide variety of different perspectives, not focusing too closely on one particular area or another.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are a bit dated, though this is likely because the sources were primary and from the time of the epidemic.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the added content is very well written, concise but specific, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some grammatical and spelling errors, so it probably needs to be read through again.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the added content is organized into three subheadings that make it easy to find what one is looking for.

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?

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article seems more complete, because it now represents a wider variety of perspectives. This author added an entire section into their article that will, likely, contribute to the general quality of the article, as it presents a perspective that had not been previously covered in much detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added brings in a new perspective from what seems to have originally been included in the article. It also appears to be well cited.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content may be improved by adding more quotations, if possible, from doctors who worked with the patients, so the reader can understand that the views expressed by the first doctor were, in fact, shared by many others.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the content added seemed very well researched and brought a new perspective to the article that seems to have been previously left out. The editor found that there was a very specific and important section in their article that was missing in the article and added it. They seem to have used sources and quotations appropriately to support their work, and generally added to the information available.