User:Siena1018/Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS/Cek78 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Siena's group (Siena1018)

Link to draft you're reviewing


 * User:Siena1018/Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

It looks like this group did not decide to edit the lead, but I think the original article does have a good lead in general

Content:

- I think overall the content that the group chose to add was very relevant and important for what was missing from the original article

- I really liked the addition of the section on HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 because it is so relevant to our lives today and is something previous editors would not have mentioned

- Similarly, I thought the addition of the section about rates of HIV in incarcerated populations was a great idea as well

- More, I thought adding more information about PrEP was very important because the original article only seemed to mention it once

Tone and Balance:

- All of the information that was added seemed very neutral and unbiased

- None of the additions seemed to sway the reader in a particular direction

Sources and References:

- The sources this group used seem to all be reliable and current

- I think this group did a really good job at summarizing the sources as well

Organization:

- I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors

- The writing was overall clear and concise and easy to follow along with

- I think this group chose the right sections of the original article to add information to

Overall Impressions:

- Overall all of this group's additions I thought were very interesting and important parts to add to what was missing in the original article

- Especially the expanding of the discussion of HIV/AIDS and marginalized groups

- One suggestion, when looking at the original article the "Violence against people living with HIV" section seemed a little short and lacked current information (the two sources in that section are from 2004 and 2014). Potentially looking a little more into current information about the violence aspect of this issue might make the original article even stronger

- Great work overall!!!