Talk:HIV/AIDS in Malawi/GA1

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 05:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide a brief assessment. After a few days, when I have had time to evaluate some of the sources to check whether they are reliable and accurately reflected in text (WP:MEDRS), I'll provide a more complete review. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

• Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
• If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
• Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is excellent
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for editing and uploading this article to Wikipedia, Jak8, it one of the highest-quality articles I have read and reviewed. That said, I have yet to:

•   Done Review images for copyright concerns
  • I question the relevance of "man with loaded bicycle" and "woman cooking"
•   Done Do a check of text for close paraphrasing/copyright
  • This hard to say. There is certainly evidence of 'close paraphrasing', but I am unsure if this is a result of there only being so many ways to cut a cake. Examples

• • "A Behavioural Surveillance Survey conducted by the National Statistical Office in 2006 identified truck drivers, fishermen, vendors, schoolteachers, police officers, sex workers, and men who have sex with men as the groups with the highest rates of HIV infection" (wiki) "In 2006 a Behavioural Surveillance Survey was conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO) and it targeted high risk groups namely truck drivers, sex workers, fishermen, young vendors, male and female school teachers, male and female police officers and female border traders. " (source)
  • "As of 2011, approximately 910,000 people in Malawi were HIV-positive" wiki and source
  • "According to the MDHS 2000, rural–urban differential in condom use among all men of reproductive age (15–49) is marginal (7.6% among urban men and 6.6% among rural men). " (source) “according to the Malawi Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in 2000, 7.6% of urban men and 6.6% of rural men of reproductive age (15-49) reported consistent condom use.[14]”
  • I am not sure about whether this constitutes close paraphrasing, but in my mind this is often very close to the source text. I don't have the tools to conduct a thorough check, so I will put this article on hold while this is done.

Done. --LT910001 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Some small issues, but none which would stop promotion:

• You state "many schoolchildren in Malawi", and I am wondering how many makes up many? A significant proportion, eg the same proportion as the "many Malawian men [that] believe that HIV contraction and death..."? (Sorry, I must wait several days before accessing the sources)
• The lead sentence in the marriage/relationship section mentions Christianity, I am uncomfortable framing the issue in this light given the history of HIV/AIDS distribution and prevention in Africa, and suggest that you move the reference so that it doesn't occupy prime placement in the paragraph.
• You state in 2000 Malawian churches issued a statement condemning the promotion of condoms, but that is now 14 years ago and I was wondering if there have been any changes? I can access a news report from 2008 that states it is being considered, but am not sure if that was successful.

Jak8, articles based on WPMED and other topics have previously been published in academic journals, if you are interested. I believe that this article is of a suitable calibre. Our Wikipedian-In-Residence, Bluerasberry, has been known to help with this, so I will ping Lane at this early date. If have yet to complete the source check and close paraphrasing/copyright check, but based on the high-quality of text I do not expect there to be a problem.

I will complete these checks in several days' time and, sans problems, am sure this will be a speedy promotion. --LT910001 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Update: I am putting this review on hold per concerns regarding close paraphrasing. --LT910001 (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your many edits. I can't find any other evidence of close-paraphrasing, which is wonderful. Images are tagged and article is verified by the sources. I would encourage you to try and get this published in a student journal, it is very high quality. Well done! --LT910001 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your very clear and helpful review. I am the instructor for the course and have discussed the issue of close paraphrasing with my students. We appreciate your review and the time you spent on this work. -Vignespassy (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Jak8 was very responsive in dealing with the issue, and their actual work is also of high quality. --LT910001 (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply