Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 20:43, 18 May 2008.

Review commentary

 * Notified: User:Grcampbell, User:JoeSmack,‎ User:Coppertwig, User:Eubulides, WikiProject Medicine, User:Nunh-huh, User:MastCell, User:SandyGeorgia

This FA article has been undergoing clean-up recently by several editors that focus on medical articles. There are several concerns:
 * Inline references seem to inconsistent, although there has been some cleanup.
 * In many cases references do not appear to support the statements in the article. In other cases, the references are outdated or even disused in modern science.
 * AIDS needs a complete overhaul.
 * There are several MOS issues.
 * AIDS fails to mention basic facts about survivability, incubation times, and other critical issues.
 * Other issues that are difficult to pinpoint--it's like several editors wrote it, and no one took overall responsibility to merge various writing styles. Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * AIDS is way too long. It can be summed up with references in two or three paragraphs.  The cutesy sayings belong somewhere else.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -If the wikiproject was cleaning the article, why was it brought here? Those who will most actively address the articles improvement should work on it first, so if they are in the middle of that, putting the article here is not very helpful. Also, please notify all users and :wikiprojects that you have put this article up for review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs) March 20, 2008
 * The WP isn't adequately cleaning up the article, and issues were raised on the talk page a while ago. Notifications were done; Orangemarlin just failed to post them here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't read the article for some time and I need to study it once more but on a quick read through this jumped out at me:
 * Commercially available tests to detect other HIV antigens, HIV-RNA, and HIV-DNA in order to detect HIV infection before the development of detectable antibodies are available. For the diagnosis of HIV infection these assays are not specifically approved, but are nonetheless routinely used in developed countries.
 * The first sentence is very poorly written and the second sentence is not true. Modern screening tests for HIV infection detect antibodies and p24 antigen simultaneously. PCR for HIV RNA is used all the time and is the basis of the viral load assay and genotyping for drug resistence. PCR for HIV proviral-DNA is approved and is central to the diagnosis of HIV infection in babies born to infected mothers. (Unfortunately, they are not routinely used in developing countries because they are expensive). To find errors such as these in a featured article is appalling.--Graham Colm Talk 21:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment-I just plowed through the External Links section. Many of the links overlapped each other, some were just a link to a bunch more links.  I cleaned it up.  I also added an external reading section that links to pdf files of key resources.  I'm going to find some more external links that are useful, but to be honest, most were giant advertising for something or another.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Here are some comments from a first quick read of the article.
 * The lead gives too-short shrift (in many case, no coverage) to symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and history—entire sections of the article are not mentioned in the lead.
 * The last paragraph in the lead (on stigma) is not sourced, and makes claims that are not a summary of the text.
 * WP:MEDMOS suggests a Classification section, and that's a good idea here.
 * WP:MEDMOS suggests that AIDS's material should be split into two parts. The transmission part should be moved to AIDS and the prevention part kept (so that the section is renamed to Prevention). This sounds like a good idea too.
 * AIDS contains extended coverage of survival time, material that belongs in AIDS.
 * AIDS does not mention the symptoms of acute HIV syndrome. Admittedly this is not AIDS, but it is relevant (perhaps should be in a new Classification section).
 * There's no mention of AIDS-related lung illnesses such as lymphoid interstitial pneumonia (pediatric AIDS) or pulmonary lymphoid hyperplasia.
 * Come to think of it, there's no mention of the symptoms of pediatric AIDS, e.g., ear infections, tonsillitis, delayed development.
 * There are several dead links.
 * Much of the material under AIDS belongs in AIDS.
 * AIDS is just a stub sketchy; it is more of an outline of what a pathophysiology section might be, than a high-quality section.
 * AIDS uses the term "staging system" without defining it.
 * AIDS is way too long. Subarticle, please.
 * AIDS is also too long. It should be cut by a factor of four. It should just summarize its subarticle.
 * AIDS and other subsections of AIDS contain considerable historical material that should be in AIDS.
 * AIDS does not cover crucial topics like comorbid conditions, changes with time, and risk factors.
 * AIDS is missing some basic answers about prognosis. (Orangemarlin mentioned this too.)
 * AIDS is too long. A subarticle would fix this.
 * I'm going to take 2/3's of this section and make it into a subarticle. The first three paragraphs are a good review.  The rest belongs elsewhere.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AIDS spends some time talking about HIV species. That's not a question of history; that material belongs elsewhere.
 * Removed the species stuff. But it needs a rewrite.  I'm not familiar with the history of AIDS, other than when I was inserting IV catheters in 1979, I never wore gloves.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are more problems, I suspect, but this should be enough for starters. Eubulides (talk) 08:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources are getting dated. Only one high-quality source from 2008, and maybe five from 2007, among 103 citations? Sounds like the article hasn't been kept up-to-date. I suggest that someone start with Kallings 2008 and read it and follow its citations, to see how to bring AIDS up to date.
 * Wow. This is going to take almost as much work as an FAC.  I started working on the sexual contact section, and I got a migraine trying to figure out what was being said.  So, I went to something I thought would be easy, the links, and I wanted to throw my laptop out the window.  I know, these comments are useful, but it's 1:30 in the morning, and I've been reading for 4 hours.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 08:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of copyediting and MoS items, but my comments would probably be more effective if I wait until more of the basic work is done. And again, there is still an external jump to an external website in the text. I've raised this multiple times on the talk page; it keeps coming back. See WP:EL. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), formatting (2), prose (1a), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No feedback since two days after the FAR was initiated, diff during FAR (69 edits, mostly vandal reverts). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove per prose (1a), referencing (1c), lead section (2a), and focus (4). I hate to vote "remove" as it's clearly a high-quality article on an important topic. But only a few of the abovementioned problems have been addressed. A non-stub AIDS section has been added during the past 24 hours, but it's mostly just an outline. The whole article still needs attention from a good copyeditor. Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Demote until the Pathophysiology section is greatly improved. There is no mention of the importance of apoptosis, co-receptor switching and progression to AIDS. This article is about a disease and it is important to get the pathology right. The quality of the rest of the article is good but some sections, economic impact for example, ramble on a bit. Yes, it could do with some CE attention, but not that much. --Graham Colm Talk 12:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Demote until all the points have been fixed. I agree with the two other "voters" above.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove per above. --Una Smith (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: TimVickers and Orangemarlin are working on it.  Pathophysiology and Prognosis are a wreck.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Further update Tim Vickers and I have tried to make changes. I've done a lot of cleaning per the recommendations here, but the article just doesn't flow well.  The prose needs serious copyediting, which is not one of my skillsets.  Two sections, mentioned above, Pathophysiology and Prognosis are in bad shape.  Causes reads like several different editors, all of different writing skills, contributed to the writing, yet there is no coherence.  Treatment section needs to be reviewed by an expert.  Tim Vickers has improved the lead a lot.  The external links have been cleaned up (wow, was there cruft accumulated there).  We really need some copyediting before we can do the next phase of cleaning.  I think.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to look for a copyeditor unless we're assured the text is up to date and cited: is it there now? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugh, yes, the flow really is off; there's a whole lot of text at the top of Diagnosis which is actually history ???? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved that. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the top priority for the article should be to discuss and agree on the respective scopes of AIDS and HIV. Then, swap text between the two articles as needed to fit the content to the scopes.  --Una Smith (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Update after a week, no progress whatsoever on Pathophysiology, which needs a complete rewrite. Unless someone is able to take this on, this one isn't likely to make it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is way outside of my skill set. I pulled out a paper on it, but because I don't know much about it, I can't write it.  I've tried to ask Tim Vickers, who is a virologist, to help out, but I don't think it's in his skill area either (but I'm not sure, maybe he just doesn't have time).  This is sad for such an important article.  I wish someone could help out.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 06:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's always public domain places like the NIH for starters. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I try to aim for the best. I'd aim low if I even knew how to describe Pathophysiology in 10 words or less.  OK, I'll give it a shot.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I just realized the "Diagnosis" section needs work, too. It starts with a throwaway sentence ("The diagnosis of AIDS in a person infected with HIV is based on the presence of certain signs or symptoms.") and moves on to talking about Staging, without every clearly discussing how the condition is diagnosed. More than six weeks into FAR, I don't see any indication that the broad effort needed to restore this article is underway. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Work and comments have both dropped off, so removing. I think this has seen improvement but it's been open an awful long time. Marskell (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.