User talk:MargaretGarry
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/African_Politics_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, MargaretGarry, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Daniel Hershfield Peer Review
[edit]- The lead is both concise and reflective of the changes that you made in updating the original article. You did a great job citing all of your information and ensuring that it flows well together.
- Overall, your content does a really good job of updating the previous article and adding several categories like background and prevalence. While I'm sure you're going to fill the rest of the article in, it would be fascinating to include more about the impact of HIV on the LGBTQ+ community in Zimbabwe.
- Your tone is neutral and informative throughout the article
- You use a broad and academic body of literature to back up the information you put in the article. You also do a great job of continually citing throughout the article.
- The one image you use in the article is good, but maybe it might be more useful to find a map that lists the geographic prevalence of HIV/AIDs infection in Zimbabwe? Additionally, you can't zoom in on the map when you click on it in a separate window. It might be useful to find a more detailed map that allows for users to explore more.
- Overall, this is a very well done article that is, in my opinion, well on its way to being fully fleshed out and A worthy! I would just recommend filling out each of your sections with a little more information, especially the sections on mortality rates, treatment, sex workers, and the LGBTQ+ community. Great job, Margaret!
Thegreatsloth (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
James Gunn review
[edit]Review of existing article - not Margaret's work (-Rachel)Rsfisher (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Peer review by James Gunn
General info Whose work are you reviewing? Margaret Garry Link to draft you're reviewing: HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe
Lead evaluation
The lead paragraph is specific to one study (ZDHS) and not a summary of the entire page. I think your current lead paragraph would be better as a subsection of testing within Zimbabwe. It is also important to note that the survey discussed in the first paragraph is considered to be inaccurate. I do not think an inaccurate survey should be discussed so early on because people navigating to this page are likely looking for accurate information on the HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe. Instead, it could be in a subsection of testing that discusses inaccuracies within Zimbabwe's HIV/AIDS testing.
Content evaluation
All the content is relevant to the subject and adds important information to the page. Some of the statistics cited are more than a decade old, but I suspect that has more to do with a lack of up-to-date information on the subject. If you are able to find new and reliable data that would be worth adding. However, including the older data was a good idea because it helped show the larger picture of how HIV/AIDS has changed in Zimbabwe. You could potentially create a timeline or history section later on if you find enough new data to replace to the older studies you currently have.
Tone and balance evaluation
Most of the content appears to be neutral, but some statements have yet to be backed up with sources and data. Once you are able to support the first paragraph with a source and expand upon the last major paragraph with specific data, the page will be more reliable. None of the claims appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position. I do not think any viewpoints were over or underrepresented. None of the information seemed to be persuading the reader to favor one side over the other.
At this point, the page reads more like an essay than a Wikipedia page. I think you could benefit from adding sections to cut up your information into subcategories of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe.
Sources and references evaluation
The first paragraph still needs a source but I see you are looking for one. The sources you have included are reliable, current, and do a good job supporting the page. I am sure you will find more sources to further compliment your work as you continue to add to the page.
i was not able to open the first and second source.
Organization evaluation
The content is all well written and easy to read. I did not find any spelling or grammatical mistakes. As I said in the Tone and Balance section, I think this page would be improved if the information was split into sections.
Images and media evaluation
No images have been added to this page yet.
New Article Evaluation
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements with three reliable sources. I suspect the user will add more sources as they continue to work on this page. Compared to the HIV/AIDS in South Africa page, this page still needs to create some sections. I suggest the user use the South Africa example to model their page. This article has linked to a few other articles.
Overall evaluation
The article does a great job showing important information on this topic. This article provides a strong timeline of how HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe have changed over time. I strongly encourage the reader to expand this section because it has the potential to become a great timeline or history section. Overall, the content added as improved my understanding of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesAGunn (talk • contribs) 20:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)