User:EmDom521/Fred Mhalu/Alyce26 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? EmDom521
- Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:EmDom521/sandbox?
Lead
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead is concise and gives me a good overview of who the article is about.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, but just the last sentence.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead looks really good overall. You include a good overview of what the article is about. The one thing I would suggest is to include some more information about the lead's last sentence (Mhalu's current work) in the "Career" section, as long as it isn't too repetitive.
Content
[edit]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?
- Some
Content evaluation
[edit]The content all gives me a good understanding about who Mhalu is and his importance in HIV research. I would say that maybe some content missing would be what he is currently working on in the "Career" section. I think that because you included brief information on that in the lead you should mention it in more detail in the article. For the "TANSWED" section, I understand that because there is not article on it you want to give readers an overview to better understand the work Mhalu did. I would say though that the article is about Fred Mhalu and most of that section focuses on what TANSWED was. I recommend that you include more information on Mhalu's role/work with TANSWED to balance out the content.
Tone and Balance
[edit]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
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone of the article is neutral and does not convey any one sided biases,
Sources and References
[edit]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?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]All of your sources look good and there are enough citations to back up the information in the article.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Career section is a bit logn
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Mhalu was a professor at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, a Dean of the School of Medicine, and the Director of Postgraduate Studies and Research at Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania ever since 1977.
- I would reword it because it's lengthy and I can't tell what "ever since 1977" refers to. Right now it seems to refer to all parts of the sentence and in that case the tense is incorrect.
- His main area of study revolved around infectious diseases and intervention.
- should be "revolves"
- Ever since 1986, he was a main contributor to the information about AIDS in Africa.
- This should either not be in past tense (change to "he has been"), or you should remove "ever since"
- Mhalu was a professor at the Department of Microbiology and Immunology, a Dean of the School of Medicine, and the Director of Postgraduate Studies and Research at Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania ever since 1977.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
Organization evaluation
[edit]The organization looks good overall. Just a suggestion, but it might be helpful to break the "career" section into subsections. Also, watch out for grammar and the tenses you use.
For New Articles Only
[edit]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?
- Yes
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- 10 sources -- for the length of the article, the amount is pretty exhaustive
- 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?
- Yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- Yes, many
New Article Evaluation
[edit]This article looks really good and contains all of the necessary content for a new article.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Shows the importance of Mhalu in his field really well and contains a lot of information on his career
- How can the content added be improved?
- review some of the grammar, include more info about Mhalu's work with TANSWED
Overall evaluation
[edit]This article is overall very strong and gave me a good picture of Mahlu and his work. Good job!