User:Jselod/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
HIV/AIDS in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I found it interesting that it would be classed as grade C despite providing information on an important aspect of the US (both historically and in terms of public health).

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead has a good introductory sentence, although it could be slightly more concise. Although it doesn't briefly introduce every section in the article, it does not include extra and unnecessary information that is not present later.

Content: The content is up-to-date, but the article is missing a substantial amount of information. For example, the section on treatment/medication speaks about progress being made but does not give names of drugs either historically or currently in use for treatment of HIV/AIDS in the US. Additionally, the article later references some medications without having introduced them.The article does address equity gaps, both in the spread and perception of the disease.

Tone/balance: The article is neutral and sources are varied and current (except for historically-relevant sources). Additionally, the article makes use of statistics from sources such as the CDC (relevant to the HIV/AIDS topic). Some care could be added to generalist phrases (such as "Homosexuality is viewed negatively within the African-American community") to not create absolutes.

Organization/writing quality: The article is very dense, and could benefit from being more concise. Additional figures to present statistics and data could help. Otherwise, grammar appears to be correct and the article well-organized.

Images/media: The article does include a few images, but for the most part only graphs or charts. It would be helpful to have visual representations of what the disease could look like, or how healthcare/treatment looked like (or historical images relevant to HIV/AIDS in the US). Additionally, the images are concentrated at the beginning of the article, rendering it visually unappealing.

Talk page: Overall, conversations seem to agree with my points, although there are some instances of users deleting parts of the article with no explanation or edits without explanations.

Overall, the article is well-developed, but could be more so in sections about the medical aspects of the disease in the US. It could also benefit from a wider spread of images (both in terms of visual content and location throughout the article), better writing (less POV and more concise points), and stronger communication between editors.