User:Bergumar/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link) Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I choose to evaluate this article because of the message saying it needs to be updated with current information. The global HIV data section needs to be expanded. There is a section with no sources to back the information. I think the AIDS and society section could also use expanding and updating. The lead was a little chaotic to read and could be more concise.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does have an introductory sentence that relates to the article's topic. However, it is a little vague on which authors are considering HIV/AIDS as a "global pandemic" versus a "global epidemic". The introductory statement touches on but does not elaborate on why there is a discrepancy on the term used to describe it based on the source referring to the condition.

The Lead discusses information from the article's major sections. It could be restructured a bit to seem more coherent with the structure of the rest of the article. Some sections are talked about more than others and it could use more consistency with the type of information discussed. It does not have much detail on the section of AIDS and society.

The last section of the Lead talks about HIV/AIDS origin, but there is no clear section within the article designated to HIV/AIDS origin.

There are some terms that readers may not be familiar with like "prevalence" and "incidence" that could use links to clarify what those numbers are referring to. Some of the information is written in a confusing manner and could be more concise. I think the Lead has many areas that could be reworded or restructured to make the information clearer and easier to understand. It does seem to be a little overdetailed. Some countries have different types of details presented in the Lead which could be omitted and discussed later in their own sections because it makes the introduction seem less uniform and consistent.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Overall, the content discussed is relevant to the topic.

The article contains some up to date content and some out of date content. For example, the Oceania section is referring to data from 2006. Some of the sections are clear about the year the data is from and some sections are unclear. This is seen in sections such as the Caribbean and Central and South America. The counts given are not specified from what year they are referring to. The sections tend to refer to data from different years which makes it more difficult to compare and contrast the locations during the same time frame. Overall, the article could use updates on its content to reflect the most current information available.

Content that is missing could include a section on HIV/AIDS origin and how it spread through the world, more information on the social impacts of HIV/AIDS, and a section designated to treatments, prevention strategies, and advances relevant to epidemiology. The article is divided into sections based on geographic location which include different demographics within them, but there could potentially be a section added to make the overall rates of demographics like age, sex, and sexual orientation clearer.

The article does discuss groups that are historically underrepresented because there is information from all of the regions of the world. However, some regions have more information than others which could show some inequities on the extensiveness of the studies done in various geographic locations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The overall tone of the article is neutral and does not seem to be biased in one way or another. It is relaying the statistics found through out the world and not opinions on them. There are sections that have more information than others, but I think that is based on the amount of information available to us. The article does not have a persuasive tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the information presented in the article does not contain sources to back up the statements. For example, this is seen in the Western Europe section. There are also other instances where statements are not followed by a source to confirm the claim. Most of the information is backed up by reliable sources such as the CDC, WHO, World Bank, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Some of the sources are from the early 2000s, so there is probably updated literature on the topic. However, there are some sources that are more up to date as well. There is a diverse selection of authors contributing to the sources. The South and South East Asia section included a study. I am unsure if this study counts as a primary source of information which would not be a good source for a Wikipedia article. All of the links I checked worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the article is written okay overall but it could be more concise and easier to read. I thought that the Lead could have been written in a way that was easier to understand. Some of the sentences were a little confusing. The sections could have been structured similarly in order to help the flow of the article, but this would be challenging because each location has different data available. I did not notice any major grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down based on geographic location which I think is fitting for the topic. The sections reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article includes a few images that are a little out of date. The idea of the images would be helpful if they referred to current trends instead of the ones in 2009 or 2011 like they are showing. One of the images shows life expectancy in Sub-Saharan Africa due to the AIDS pandemic, but the article doesn't really discuss life expectancies. I did not see a caption written in to describe the images nor did I see any links/sources unless I clicked on the image itself. There were only images for the Lead and the Sub-Saharan Africa section and not for the other sections. I feel like if one section gets an image, the others should as well. The images included were laid out in an appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is focused on the information presented in the article and how some of it needs updating/revising. Some of the issues in the talk page have been resolved. The article is of interest to Wikiprojects including AIDS, death, medicine, and viruses. They all rate the article as C-class and it is of top to high importance. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic does not differ much from in class. We have not really discussed the HIV/AIDS epidemic much in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The overall status of the article is that it contains a lot of useful data but it needs to be updated to reflect current numbers. The overall format of how it is broken down into geographic locations is a strength. It could be improved by making the data between the locations easier to compare. It also uses a diverse amount of sources which is good, but some areas in the article are missing their sources. I think that this article is only a little poorly developed. There is a lot of information, but they have not been updated. Certain sections do not have much information. There are also parts that could be reworded to make it more concise.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: