User:Lolanallie123/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) History of HIV/AIDS
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I know enough about the topic to make reasonable judgments as to whether the article is neutral, accurate, and detailed appropriately.

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 article does include an introductory sentence that captures the main topic. However, I do not think the lead includes a brief introduction on the article's major sections. It more so discusses the prevalence of the different types of HIV and does not delve into the zoonotic transmission or flow of events that lead to the AIDS epidemic. I do think that all of the information discussed in the lead is also present elsewhere in the article. The lead could perhaps be more concise - I do not think it is entirely necessary to mention the major countries impacted by each HIV subtype, this is a bit over-detailed and the lead should focus on the flow of topics in the article.

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
All of the content is relevant to the topic in one way or another, with some points being discussed more thoroughly than others. I would not necessarily claim that all of the information is up to date because the timeline seems to end around the mid-80's. Surely, more history relevant to HIV has occurred since this time. I would agree that everything currently in the article belongs, but it does present much more of the Western perspective of the virus, so I would be interested to see more of a discussion of the global history of the virus.

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
I find the article to be neutral without any claims towards one particular position. As mentioned, the content is off-balance a bit towards the Western interpretation of the virus and it would be nice to see more of a discussion from the Western Africa perspective, because this is just as essential to the history of HIV narrative.

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
I am very impressed with how many sources are included in the article. Most, if not all, appear to be from scientific journals including Nature and The Lancet. However, most, if not all sources appear to be from either American or British origin. For this reason, I do not believe the sources represent the most thorough global picture of the history of HIV. The sources seem current. All of the links that I randomly clicked appear to be working.

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 would say the organization is one of the article's main strengths. I find it easy to read and without any major errors.

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
This is probably the article's greatest weakness - there is one picture (that is not even entirely relevant) in the entire article, which is considerably long. More pictures are definitely warranted. The image in the article is well-captioned and adheres to Wikipedia's regulations. I would not necessarily say it adds to any visual appeal.

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 article is apart of four wikiprojects, all related to science/medicine. Most of the conversations going on behind the scenes, in my opinion, seem a bit nit-picky. Not to say that that is a bad thing, but it seems like on the whole, everyone is satisfied with the article, but there are a few titles or sentence fragments that people do not necessarily agree on. Also, whenever anything is added, it looks like someone brings up the question as to whether the information is actually relevant to the topic, which is very useful.

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, it is a well-written article that presents the most pertinent information relating to the history of HIV. Its strengths are that it draws from over a hundred reputable sources, and every fact is backed up with a source. Furthermore, the article goes into a lot of depth, even discussing the social determinants behind HIV. I would say that the article can be improved by including more African sources and voices, and explaining the history of the virus in this part of the world as well. The article seems to focus on the most notable American history, which is fine, but the article is not titled the American history of HIV/AIDS, thus, a more global approach is warranted. I would say the article is fairly complete and well developed, however, it can be majorly improved by incorporating more images. The lead might be tweaked to include more of the content of the article and less on lists of countries. Also, the article drops off around the 1980s. Seeing as how multiple decades have passed, continuing the content through the 90s and early 2000s would offer a more extensive picture on the history of HIV.

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: