User:Mikic4/sandbox

bold

Article Evaluation: Really important to critically review information while using Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles have varying levels of review, so some are more reliable than others. Look for 'Good' or 'Featured' articles (ratings are left in the talk pages). Best articles have a clear overview lead section, a clear structure and logical organization, balanced and neutral coverage of topics, and reliable sources. Good sourcing is very important, and everything on Wikipedia must be reliably sourced, but make sure to avoid plagiarizing and properly cite sources.

HIV/AIDS in Malawi article evaluation:

1. Is all article content relevant?

Yes. While the intro/lead section is sometimes hard to follow, it and the article encompass an appropriate level of context and range about the topic, from history to the different aspects of the topic, etc.

1. Neutrality

I felt it was neutral and any statements that might be viewed as editorializing were properly cited and the context of the article allowed for everything to be very balanced.

1. Comparison of HIV/AIDS in Malawi article and HIV-affected community article

The Malawi article is very detailed, in-depth, and well-sourced whereas the other one is a stub, which means it has been identified as something that should be an article but has not been created yet. The first article is a better article and better if searching for information, whereas the second one is more conducive to further research especially if one is wanting to make a Wikipedia article.

1. Citations

The links I tested work and are appropriate sources for the claims within the article.

1. Source quality

The sources all seem to be scientific papers that are seemingly reliable, suitably neutral, and appropriately used within the article. It's not entirely up to date as far as the year 2017, however, I feel it falls into acceptable levels of up-to-date due to the dependence on scientific studies and how long that can take, etc.

1. In 2014, this article had been totally revised and expanded as part of a user's "intensive course study at Rice University." There were a few concerns/questions about the level of sourcing, which were resolved as the article continued to be expanded. Additionally, a reviewer was concerned with the lead section in the context of the Good Article standards, which didn't seem to have been addressed on the talk page, but may have been somewhat addressed in article revisions, but that would most likely have been noted on the talk page.
2. It is rated as a good article, and listed as a 'Natural Sciences good article.' It is a part of three Wikiprojects: Africa/Malawi, Medicine, and Viruses.
3. The article goes a lot more in-depth on a broad range of aspects of the disease, especially its sociocultural effects and causes, in a way that we haven't done in class. Additionally, Malawi is not a place we have discussed much at all in class, and while some aspects of the HIV issue there are universally experienced, it is still an individualized national perspective that we haven't really studied.

Content Gap Discussion: I think a content gap in the context of Wikipedia is when the information present is all appropriate, reliable, neutral, and relevant, but doesn't completely encompass all that is necessary for the article and the topic. We kind of naturally identify them as we are reading because the paragraphs and writing can come across as confusing or jumpy. But also if we are looking for specific information that is pertinent to the topic which is not discussed in the article, that is a content gap. Content gaps can occur accidentally while writing, especially when attempting to cover a broad range of details. Or they can be intentional if the writer thinks it interrupts the flow of the work or if there just aren't enough reliable sources. Further research at a later time in order to uncover new sources could remedy content gaps, as well as just multiple reviews by multiple readers in order to better identify content gaps. It doesn't matter in the sense that it is an open forum and anyone can sign up, however, it is also a self-regulating forum where people who are trolling or not doing the necessary work to be qualified to create/edit articles are weeded out as others come behind them and edit. Just like any other forum, unbiased on Wikipedia means presenting the facts in a neutral, balanced way, devoid of personal opinion, editorializing, or anecdotal evidence.

AIDS service organization article project: As this article is a stub with only one source and little beyond a definition currently, I plan to completely flesh out this article. I am planning on writing about the factors which resulted in the creation of these service organizations, as well as the difficulties they faced, and how that has changed or remained stagnant over time. Additionally, I would like to compile as much of a list of AIDS service organizations as possible, especially those which have been/continue to be very influential in relief, and that connect to other fully-formed Wikipedia articles, especially those in the HIV/AIDS Wikiproject.