Talk:HIV/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs, see WP:LEAD for guidelines.
2. Address all of the "citation needed" tags. Some have been there since October 2008.
3. There's some errors with the spacing of the inline citations (such as ". [1]" or ".[2]."). Try and fix all occurrences. I'll fix any you miss when I copyedit the article.
4. The "Blood or blood product", "The clinical course of infection", and "AIDS" sections are unsourced.
5. The "Other routes" section consists of a single sentence. Either expand on the information or merge the subsection into another one. There are also other single sentences throughout the article. They should be expanded on or be incorporated into another paragraph.
6. There are a few dabs that should be fixed as well as a few dead links/redirects. The Internet Archive can help with fixing those.

This article covers the topic well and has a great source of free images. Due to the length of the article, I will wait to review the prose for any other issues until the above points have been addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

#3 is done (at least, I think I caught them all). --Scray (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

#6 dabs are fixed. Still working on dead/redirects. --Scray (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As for, #1: no, the lede doesn't need to be reduced to four paragraphs: four paragraphs is suggested as a guideline, with exceptions. What the lede needs to be is a concise, readable overview of the article. Therefore any criticism of its length should be based on content rather than an arbitrary number. Specifically, those who assert that it is too long should state what information there is superfluous or in some way detracts from the goal of the lede being a readable overview. If something needs to be sacrificed at the Good Article altar, my suggestion is that we reduce the epidemiological information (much of paragraph 3) to about a sentence, and combine it with paragraph 4. That will get the "magic number" for GA; but it should probably only be done if someone also feels it will improve the article. - Nunh-huh 22:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are my two cents about what to cut (based on what seems out of place for a lead, not based on any numeric target for length): 1) sentence starting "Previous names" (none of these are in wide use today), 2) sentence starting "HIV infection leads to low levels of CD4+ T cells" (too much detail for the lead), 3) somehow merge the paragraph starting "Eventually most HIV-infected individuals develop AIDS." with the mentions elsewhere about opportunistic infections, antiretrovirals, etc (I'm not as sure about how to do this one). As for the epidemiology, it does seem like a lot of numbers, but we should hit high points like the huge impact on Africa (I've trimmed a bit of the language but it could probably be shorter still). Kingdon (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree on the previous names; not needed in intro. I will do that and attempt to squish into the arbitrary "4" paragraphs; feel free to revert, undo, or re-edit. - Nunh-huh 10:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the sentence about predicted numbers of deaths could be removed from the intro; we can content ourselves with history rather than prognostication. - Nunh-huh 10:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

#6 completed. --Scray (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good work addressing some of the issues. I will leave the article on hold for another week for the remaining issues to be addressed. The sourcing issues are the main concerns, and if sources cannot be found for the content, then it should be removed for now until a source is found later. I had forgot to watchlist this review page, so if you have any additional comments/questions, I'll try and reply quicker this time. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept

Good work addressing the sourcing issues. I went through and made some cleanup edits, please review them. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)