User:MeggoKeggo/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) Talk:Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. HIV/AIDS is a very common and broad biological topic. I chose to pic a simple yet informative topic to gain familiarity with wikipedia.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? the page was last edited October 31, 2019
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no, all content is cited, the only thing that appears to be wrong is certain numeric values.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, and links are attached for more info.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? indifferent, this is arguably biased, due to spreading info about HIV/AIDS, and including links to further research.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? AIDS endemic could be elaborated on further.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current?yes, mostly (article last updated in 2019)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, very easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? not that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, and cited.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? several updated have been made through various conversations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? four wikiprojects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? we have yet to understand how a virus such as AIDS, disrupts our cells.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? this article is involved in several different projects. its a good standing article.
 * What are the article's strengths? this article has credible sources.
 * How can the article be improved? certain values need to be rounded properly, and other tiny factors should be double checked again in 2020 to compare relevancy.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? this is a well developed article. several Wikipedia's have added their touches.

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: