User:Sora360/Traditional and Modern Health Practitioners Together against AIDS/Lolanallie123 Peer Review

Peer review

I am sorry this was not in the right place originally!

Peer review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Sora360

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

Lead Lead evaluation

Strong lead. I feel that it says exactly what it needs to say and lays out the framework for what you are about to talk about.

Content Content evaluation

For the history heading and then origins sub-heading, you might want to consider either adding some information under the "history" heading, otherwise you should just title the section "origins" because both headings are not necessary as is.

What happened between 1992 and 1998?

Instead of leading with "Before the Colonial Era..." you might just want to list the years or add in the years as well. Many readers might not know what time period you are specifically referring to.

Back to back sentences also begin with "During/Before the Colonial Era...", you might want to reword these to mix it up

When you say "Serving 80% of people", does this mean 80% of the Ugandan population, 80% of HIV positive individuals, or something else? Maybe consider clarifying that stat

I'm not sure if you are totally done with adding in content, but I would suggest adding what traditional healers were actually doing with HIV/AIDS patients or even what their role is now. If biomedical and traditional practices are collaborating, what exactly are they doing? Again, there might not be strong literature on this but if there is I think it would be an interesting piece.

Likewise, when you mention "several attempts" to support healers, what were these attempts?

Maybe see about linking other articles to the information under "history"

Instead of saying "HIV/AIDS victims", you might want to rephrase to something like "HIV positive individuals", as this is more empowering

In the last paragraph of the "Origins" section, you have a lot of information in parentheses that is a bit superfluous and kind of stumbling to read. You might want to either cut out some of it or rephrase it in a way that they are the subject of the sentence.

Tone and Balance Tone and balance evaluation

All looks good here. Good job!

Sources and References Sources and references evaluation

Be sure to add a reference for the paragraph "On February 2000..."

Every link that I clicked on worked.

Organization Organization evaluation

The organization flows besides the origin/history thing I mentioned earlier.

Since you do have a whole section under history (I sort of mentioned this already) you might want to add a more current paragraph to reflect recent undertakings (if there are any)

Capitalize "Medicine" in heading

Images and Media Images and media evaluation

I know it is hard to comply with Wikipedia's picture citation requirements, but I would recommend trying to find one image you could add. It adds a lot of 'life' to the article so it is not just black and white.

Overall impressions Overall evaluation

Good job! It is concise and to the point and offers a lot of good information. Strengths include a neutral and balanced tone throughout, as well as a lot of good sources. Besides a few tweaks and beefing up some of the content, I think you have a stellar article! Lolanallie123 (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)