User:InnocentSplit/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: HIV
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

As we begin to delve into the topic of African scientists and their contribution to the fight against HIV/AIDS, I believe that it is critical to review the disease in the first place. Thus, I decided to evaluate the Wikipedia article which discusses the disease.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. The article starts off my briefly describing the virus which causes HIV to manifest in individuals, explaining what type of virus it is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. Immediately following the first two introductory paragraphs there is a "contents" section which has active hyperlinks to different parts of the article for quick and easy navigation.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. From what I can tell, the lead functions like an abstract for the rest of this Wikipedia article. Rather than bringing in new information, it synthesizes the sections that follow, providing a condensed summary of the information presented.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe that the lead is relatively concise however it may be a bit daunting for those not from scientific background. For example, the lead appears to use quite a bit of biochemical terminology that may detract someone from continuing farther. While this is likely due to the nature of the topic, perhaps this could've been presented later in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. The article covers the main topics of issue including the virology, diagnosis, research, treatment, and history of the virus. Thus, the article presents both biochemical and social / historical information about the virus. These topics are relevant to anyone seeking a full understanding of HIV/AIDS.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It appears to be- many of the cited scientific research articles are from 2015-2019 which is within a permissible range. However, science is frequently changing which may mean that key new information is missing.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * One aspect that is clearly not addressed is the work conducted by African scientists. Additionally, many initiatives like PEPFAR are also missing. While these ideas may be discussed in other Wikipedia entries, it count be useful to provide links to those.

==== Content evaluation: While this is a great start, I believe that there is a bit of information missing from the article. I think this entry could benefit from linking more articles in the "See Also" section, thus providing a more complete list of resources for those wishing to better understand HIV/AIDS. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. I don't feel as though the author was trying to prove a point but rather I feel that the author was presenting the information, as is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I did not feel that this was the case. In fact, I think that the author(s) did a great job indicating potential alternative viewpoints. In particular, I think that the representation of potential origins of HIV/AIDS was excellent. The author included information that both supports and contradicts the leading ideas thus allowing the reader to make their own conclusion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Perhaps this article focuses heavily on the scientific side of things. As many are aware, there is a large population of HIV deniers. While this particular entry may not be the place to bring that topic up, perhaps that could be discussed in the history section. They did, however, link another Wikipedia article that discusses this idea.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think that this article seeks to sway a reader one way or another. As indicated above, I think that a variety of viewpoints were often presented. Additionally, the author seemed to provide equal amounts of pros and cons of presented hypotheses, all of which were grounded in well-attributed sources.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. The author is backing up their claims with reliable sources such as Science magazine and other well-known and well-regarded scientific journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I believe so. The author has maintained the page very well, providing data as recent as 2020. I also think that the author provides well-informed insight on a variety of relevant topics such as the virology as well as treatment itself.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. As indicated above, the author has even included sources published just this year.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked 3 links at random and they all worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. The article is very easy to read. The syntax and diction are both clear and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any blatant grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is extraordinarily well organized. The use of a "content" section was particularly useful as it allows for easy navigation between the sections. Additionally, the author uses subsections for further organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. The article included a wide variety of images. In particular, the image of the virus's replication cycle allowed for greater understanding of the material presented.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes. The author makes clear which figure in pictures he/she is referring to and provides detailed yet concise captions for all images and figures.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. Perhaps the pie chart towards the end of the article is a bit awkwardly set as it extends into the research section. Nothing is outrageous, though.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * It appears that there have been some editing wars on this page. For example, I noticed the following, "(Maybe the edit warring is over. If not, there will be blocks.)" This may be due to the constantly changing nature of the science behind this virus.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rate: GA class, top importance
 * Projects: Microbiology, Medicine, International Development, Africa, South Africa, Viruses
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I think that this article discusses HIV in a way that is similar to that presented in 3704.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think that this article is structured very professionally. Despite this, though, it appears that there is a large lack of consensus on the back end of Wikipedia, with many editors fighting over the information presented in the article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I think that this article was very easy to navigate and provided a great deal of up-to-date research on the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think that this article could be improved by discussing more of the socio-cultural aspects of the virus. This article was heavily focused in the microbiology and did not provide as much of the history and culture of the virus as I would have expected.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think this article is well-developed in terms of its analysis of the microbiology, virology, and medical significance of the virus but poorly developed in terms of its addressing socio-cultural aspects of the virus.

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: This article appeared to be highly protected and I could not seem to comment; regardless, the Talk page seems to be a very distressed place at the moment, with many fighting over content.