Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIV/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:33, 19 March 2008.

HIV

[edit]
previous FAC
Check external links

Nominator is Mikael Häggström (talk · contribs)

  • Comments
    • The Sowadsky reference is missing a publisher
    • The Joint United Nations Programme "Overview of the global AIDS epidemic" reference appears to have no publisher
    • Is the NIH really the publisher for the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses? (I'm fine if it is, but it looks to this layman that it should be ICTV from the website)
    • The "Should spermicides be used with condoms?" the publisher should be the FDA. (Condom Brochure, FDA OSHI HIV STDs which is listed there now is the title of the work that the subsection is part of. You would put that in the "work="field of the cite web template.)
    • "HIV Sequence Compendium 2005" is a dead link and is lacking publisher
    • "Crystal Structure of Key HIV Protein Reveals New Prevention ..." reference is lacking publisher information.
    • http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1997/partIII/Gelderblom.pdf (Fine Structure of HIV and SIV) is a dead link
    • http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/content/hiv-db/COMPENDIUM/1998/III/Carr.pdf is a dead link (Reference Sequences Representing the Principal ...)
    • http://www.hab.hrsa.gov/tools/HIVpocketguide05/PktGARTtables.htm is a dead link (A Pocket Guid to Adult HIV/AIDS Treatment January 2005 Edition)
    • "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection" and "Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1 Infected Adults and Adolescents" are missing publisher information.
    • "WHO Case definititons of HIV for Surveillance and ..." is missing publisher information.
    • "Scientists expose HIV weak spot" is missing publisher information
    • "German scientists "cure" HIV-infected ..." is missing publisher and is a blog so how reliable is this as a source?
    • "Another Potential Cure for HIV discovered" is missing publisher information, and how reliable is this as a news source?
    • "Special Session of the General Assembly ..." is missing publisher.
    • "Evaluating the World Bank's Assistance ..." is missing publisher
    • http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hivsur82.pdf ("US HIV and AIDS cases reported through December 1996") is a dead link and is lacking a publisher.
    • http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v397/n6718/abs/397436a0_fs.html is a dead link and is listed in the references as a bald link with no publisher, title, or other bibliographical information.
    • Double check the external links, http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/campaigns/aids/release080103.html was a dead link Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is not ready for FA. There are many problems with facts, it is not up to date in some sections, many readers will find it is impossible to understand because it assumes a good knowledge of cell and molecular biology.

  • The cartoon in the Info box could be replaced with a real electron micrograph.
  • The alternate names have not been used for over 20 years, even the "reference" says outdated.
  • In the second paragraph of the Lead "Infection with HIV occurs by the transfer of blood, semen, vaginal fluid, pre-ejaculate, or breast milk. Within these bodily fluids, HIV is present " only in infected people. The second half of the paragraph makes the same point but is better.
  • "According to current estimates, HIV is set to infect 90 million The reference is dated 2005..
  • Opportunistic infections should be linked and/or defined.
  • "Lentiviruses have many common morphologies no they don't they share, or have similar, even in common would be better.
  • Incubation period should be linked.
  • I'm concerned about the use of latent and latency , these words have exact meanings in virology and I don't think HIV exhibits the classical latency seen in herpesvirus.
  • termed LAV was called LAV.
  • Mother to child transmission is abbreviated to MTCT which is non-standard, and the this abbreviation is only used once. Why not just say by this route.
  • yet large for being a virus not really, about average I would say. Bad grammar here too.
  • The single-stranded RNA is tightly bound to nucleocapsid proteins, p7 and enzymes needed for the development of the virion such as reverse transcriptase, proteases, ribonuclease and integrase I don't think the integrase is structural. Please check.
  • Should coreceptor be co-receptor?
  • down-regulating you could use suppressing.
  • HIV that use only the CCR5 strains that use?
  • are termed are called?
  • The HIV test section is very out of date, Western blots? please this is the 21st century, and why no mention of PCR for proviral HIV DNA, and the all important viral load?
  • HARRT, (another out-of-date term) nor alleviates the symptoms this is dangerous nonsense.
  • The epidemic officially began on 5 June 1981 makes it sound like a party.

There's so much work needed on the article. It has once more been presented here too early.--GrahamColmTalk 12:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Postscript. I tried a copy edit tonight because this is an important virus. I gave up; most of the cellular and molecular biology is accurate, but it's such a jumble sale! It reads like every Ph.D. student on the planet has pasted in bits of their theses. It's too much work to take on.--GrahamColmTalk 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC))[reply]

  • Precious little on pharmocotherapy, which is complicated and needs some detail, even in summary form. Precious little on HIV and ageing—much more information has recently come to light on this topic. I think it's not ready for promotion. Tony (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is a long way from FA quality. The Origins section in particular is really inadequate, and by the way AIDS origin probably should be merged into HIV and cleaned up. About half of the early cases listed do not held up to examination and some early cases that do hold up are not listed. --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, large chunks of HIV would fit better in other articles about AIDS. In particular, the sections on clinical course, treatment, prognosis, AIDS denial, and vaccine design and trials. That is in line with how other virus/disease topic pairs have developed here on Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per some of the concerns noted directly above, and additionally some major image problems per WP:MOS#Images. The article rampantly stacks images in rows on the right, which interferes with the formatting and makes the text difficult to read. VanTucky 03:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I reviewed just HIV#Epidemiology. This is a fork of an old version of AIDS#Epidemiology. HIV#Epidemiology contains a bunch of material (World Bank; prevention in Uganda) that isn't epidemiology. It also contains many obsolete estimates that should be updated in the light of the revised (and reduced) December 2007 estimates by UNAIDS. Better yet, the section should be trimmed down to a couple of sentences and just refer to AIDS#Epidemiology as the main section (or vice versa); why maintain two copies of HIV/AIDS epidemiology in Wikipedia? Eubulides (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HIV/archive2&oldid=1138462077"