User:Sora360/Traditional and Modern Health Practitioners Together against AIDS/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? (Sora360)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sora360/Traditional and Modern Health Practitioners Together against AIDS

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes, very concise and well done - starting get the feeling that my lead is overly detailed.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes - the lead actually grabs my attention.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes, as THETA is a group, outlining it's purpose as group and why it came together links very well to the article overall.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: Nope.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes, I love reading this, as it is different from biographies, including a section on history and traditional medicine in Uganda overall (and in relation to HIV/AIDS) is well done.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes. Very factual, and also well supported!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: Nope. Its uses the word states and quotations to express the opinions held by others, which is a great way to go about showing perspectives without causing bias (I think).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Nope, I guess I would just want to see more in the HIV/AIDS section of traditional medicine in Uganda or even touch on their interactions more in depth(?)
 * 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, lots of sources too!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Yes (World Bank, ResearchGate, Cambridge University Press, the Lancet, etc.)
 * Are the sources current?: Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes - I also love how you added external links (they both work).

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes. Organization is also well set up.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: I don't think so.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Yes.

Images and Media: N/A
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: 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?: Yes. Especially since there was no article about this until this user created one.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: Great use of sources and organization, I also love the neutral tone.
 * How can the content added be improved?: I would just say expand more into it - it definitely seems like there's more about THETA and it's growth(?) and implications that can be touched on, especially in relation to other groups.

Overall evaluation
Hi, I'm Bryan An (username: Muhyul Go). I loved your article, it's quite interesting that you've decided to focus on the group THETA rather than a specific person. As an article it gives insight into the cultural and historical implications of the populations view on HIV/AIDS and how one group went about it. I simply wish to see more.