User:WeepingBritney/HIV student review

Breadth (5) Does the article cover its field completely? Yes. Provides a lot more information than Lehninger. Are all the common terms of the field defined? Yes Are all the basic concepts of the field described? Yes. Even provided information about alternate hypothesis. Were important topics missed? None that I could tell. Depth (5) Amount of detail appropriate for topic- Yes History given? Yes and it is very in depth and clear. The pictures also go along with the text fairly well. Readability/Writing (5) Is the writing clear? Yes. Although sometimes it seems like it is just rephrased and nothing new. Is the writing interesting? By far! Is the writing organized, good flow? Yes. It was really interesting and flowed really well. The order of the topics made the article an easy read. Architecture to the article (beginning, middle, end)? Yes Is the writing redundant? No Learnability (4) Is the level of explanation good for undergraduate students? Not too simple or complex? I think that this article provides enough clear information for the beginner learning the topic but also goes in depth when necessary so that the information is still informative for undergraduate students. Is the teaching well-organized, clear progression of topics? Yes. Figures (4) Are there Figures at all? Yes Are the Figures clear? Yes Are the Figures three-dimensional? Yes Are the Figures consistent with each other? There are several pictures, some of the retrovirus, others of pills used to treat it, and countries in which it is prevalent. References (3) Are there references? Yes Are the references recent? Yes Are the references from "good" journals? Yes. This article is good in that it uses many reputable citations. Although i did notice that some of the links don't pan out and are “fake” citations. Quality (5) How up-to-date is the article? When would this article have last been an up-to-date review of the field? Glaring errors, minor errors, and misleading statements? None How precise and quantitative is the article? good.

Britannica did not mention HIV Breadth (0) Depth (0) Readability (0) Learnability (0) Figures (0) References (0) Quality (0)