User:Lf266/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/AIDS in Africa
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Our class is focused on HIV/AIDS in Africa, specifically the researchers that played an important role in the '80s and '90s.

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 introductory paragraph is fairly concise and provides an overview about many of the topics - but not all of them are covered in the first paragraph. It mostly discusses the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the death rates, but the article includes much more information than that.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is extremely relevant and fairly up-to-date, although it could probably benefit from more recent editing. As far as I am concerned, it covers all the important topics about HIV/AIDS in Africa, but I'm not an expert on the subject.

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
According to the talk page, there are some claims that aren't backed up and/or potentially biased. It doesn't seem to persuade readers to believe one stance or another, however.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are relatively reliable and current. I clicked on a few links and they all worked. Some sources did seem to be questionable though, such as one citing allAfrica.com.

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
Overall, the article seems to be well-written; there was no grammatical/spelling errors that I could see. The Overview section only had quotes though, which I thought was not ideal. Besides that, the article is organized very well. It focuses on HIV prevention/stigma, causes, healthcare delivery, measurement, and regional prevalence, and their order of presentation makes sense.

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 images are beneficial to the reader's understanding of the topic, as well as visually stimulating, deliver information easily, and adherent to Wikipedia policies. The captions are also concise and informative.

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
There is a lot of disagreement going on in the talk page, such as a post titled "The first post here is rubbish." Most of the discussion also spans over 10+ years. The article hasn't been rated on the quality or importance scale yet, but it is part of four WikiProjects: AIDS, Africa, International Development, and Medicine. I did not notice a significant difference between this article and how we discussed this topic in class - a lot of factual information is presented in a fairly neutral, well-organized way.

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
Overall, there is a lot of quality information in this article, but some of it could be organized/worded better. It shows a lot of graphs with relevant data, relatively recent sources, quality pictures, and has a good overview of HIV/AIDS transmission, care, and how it varies by region. It could possibly be improved by editing the Overview section (which just has quotes from an organization called AVERT, and the Healthcare Delivery section could probably be expanded on, since it is very brief

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: