Wikipedia:Peer review/HIV/archive1

HIV
It is factually accurate and concise without missing the major points of HIV. Grcampbell 00:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Could do with better referencing, e.g. of the molecular biology and clinical expression of HIV infection. Some paragraphs are rather long. JFW | T@lk  01:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Will add in some references. Looking for this article to become FA status. --Grcampbell 18:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just gone through the opening few sections and made numerous changes on the clause level. I'll do the rest over the next few days. It's going to be a very good article, worthy of promotion to FA status. I hate the map of the world: can you change the gaudy green/blue colours? The pie graphs are unclear in the application—does the one on the left apply to South and North America? Needs a re-think. Tony 14:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the English changes, though some of them did confuse the science. I have redone the map of the world using softer tones. --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Please consider mentioning the symptoms in the opening paragraph; this would be a good way to engage the non-specialist at the outset.
 * The symptoms are now included at the beginning of the article. It would be hard to put many sympyoms in this area, and are more aptly discussed in WHO Disease Staging System for HIV Infection and Disease and the CDC Classification System for HIV Infection. --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Who, I wonder, is your audience? It would be valuable if an article such as this were accessible to a range of readers, including:
 * non-specialist medical practitioners (many of whom need to become more acquainted with HIV, particular those in isolated areas who may be presented with just one or several HIV patients);
 * specialist medical practitioners who need to remind themselves of the mechanics of HIV infection;
 * highly educated patients; and
 * policy makers and administrators in the area of HIV.

In the light of this, the complicated lexicon presents a serious problem in this article. It's wholly necessary, but at present is not user-friendly. Please consider the following measures, which might help to walk the non-specialist reader through the text.
 * Number the figures and refer to them a few times in the main text.
 * Done--Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Refer the reader at the top of the text to a glossary; if there isn't one on Wikipedia, create one!
 * Most terms that are used and are complicated have links to articles explaining what they are. --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Gloss more of the terms on their first appearance, although I realise that this can overly interrupt the flow—a decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, and/or provide a few links to articles on particular terms, and/or provide internal links down to the section that defines them.
 * I don't understand the term gloss. --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * At a certain point, refer the reader to the sections that explain the terms referring to particles.
 * Done --Grcampbell 21:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that you aim the text at junior medical or science undergraduates? Tony 01:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought Wikipedia was for everyone, which is why I haven't gone into detail on much of this article, it brushes over the surface mainly. I did another article in which I was more technical, and it got labelled too technical... --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I'll bother doing any more on this article; no response, and some of my suggestions ignored without comment. We'll deal with it when it comes up for consideration for FA status. Tony 23:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, the Watchlist didn't update for this page --Grcampbell 23:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)