User:Wagnermj/HIV/AIDS in Latin America/Gingerbonham 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? Wagnermj
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Wagnermj/sandbox

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. The author underpinned his/her information with recently generated secondary sources (< 5 years old).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not to my knowledge, but other peer-reviewers may present different perspective.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The contents are based on factual evidence/data, however readers with affiliation to certain sexual orientation/identity may perceive the information somehow derogatory, as it happens always.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The author attempts with his/her utmost intention to maintain impartiality when delivering the information.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The topic is well dissected into subcategories with hefty, yet not too overpowering amount of contents.
 * 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? What I would do to improve the reliability of the article contents is that I'll use the references from articles that had been cited, instead of citing those articles bluntly. For example, when you look at the first reference (HIV AND AIDS IN LATIN AMERICA THE CARIBBEAN REGIONAL OVERVIEW), you will see the "Reference" section at the bottom with loads of publications from proper medical journals. Those would make your article look more credible and reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Sources accurately support the idea of the contents.
 * Are the sources current? Yup. Most of the sources are generated within 5 years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? They all work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The language and tone of the article is scientific and easy to follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I saw a couple of typos & minor grammatical errors. Run grammarly maybe.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Contents are displayed in a manner in which they easily convey the idea with comprehensible visual representations.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I see an immediate massive improvement. It was pretty much blank. Kudos to you.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Provides statistical data with interpretation and context.
 * How can the content added be improved? References might be improved if they were from professional medical journals. But, other than that, I don't think I can do any better than this. Awesome job.