Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] AIDS

This article has been listed at the Good articles for some time now. It was also a Medicine Collaboration of the Week where it underwent a lot of improvements and it has also been through a Peer review. It is well-referenced, current, comprehensive, and, I will let you tell us if it is well-written. It has remianed stable for a long period of time, except from the obvious vandalism which a page like this does suffer from. This is a semi-self-nomination as I have worked a lot on this, but this should not detract from the nomination. --Bob 22:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE about page size. Since all the references are inline to this article, the page size warning gives a page size that is twice as large as the readable prose of the actual article. Thus, as I write this, the readable prose of this article is just a bit above 40KB ; about right for the topic, IMO. --mav 16:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Object - Everybody should look at the wikitext for this article - what a HUGE mess. It is practically unreadable due to the fact that full reference information is hidden in in it. That is very bad style - the full alphabetically sorted by name reference information should be in a ===Works cited=== subsection under ==References== with <references/> under ===Notes==. The ONLY thing that should be inline is things like <ref>Smith et al, 1995, page 56</ref> or better yet in this case (Smith et al, 1995, page 56). Be brief and to the point so as not to make editing the article more difficult than necessary. Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Most researchers believe that HIV originated in [[sub-Saharan Africa]] <ref name=Gao>{{ cite journal | author=Gao, F., Bailes, E., Robertson, D. L., Chen, Y., Rodenburg, C. M., Michael, S. F., Cummins, L. B., Arthur, L. O., Peeters, M., Shaw, G. M., Sharp, P. M. and Hahn, B. H. | title=Origin of HIV-1 in the Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes | journal=Nature | year=1999 | pages=436-441 | volume=397 | issue=6718 | id={{PMID |9989410}} {{doi|10.1038/17130}} }}</ref> during the twentieth century; it is now a [[pandemic]]. As of January 2006, [[UNAIDS]] and the [[World Health Organization]] (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on [[December 1]], [[1981]], making it one of the most destructive [[pandemics]] in recorded history. In 2005 alone, AIDS claimed between an estimated 2.8 and 3.6 million, of which more than 570,000 were children <ref name=UNAIDS>{{ cite web | author=[[UNAIDS]] | publisher= | year= 2005 | url=http://www.unaids.org/Epi2005/doc/EPIupdate2005_pdf_en/epi-update2005_en.pdf | title=AIDS epidemic update, 2005 | accessdate=2006-01-17 }}</ref>. In countries where there is access to [[antiretroviral drug|antiretroviral]] treatment, both [[mortality]] and [[morbidity]] of HIV infection have been reduced <ref name=Palella>{{ cite journal | author=Palella, F. J. Jr, Delaney, K. M., Moorman, A. C., Loveless, M. O., Fuhrer, J., Satten, G. A., Aschman and D. J., Holmberg, S. D. | title=Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators | journal=N. Engl. J. Med | year=1998 | pages=853-860 | volume=338 | issue=13 | id={{PMID |9516219}} }}</ref>.

That is horrid. The whole purpose of wikisyntax is to avoid unreadable source text like that. Featured articles are supposed to serve as examples of best practice - the above is certainly not best practice. --mav 23:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article uses the templates {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}. There are also other FA's with such templates in use, such as Pneumonia. Harvard citations were removed because they made the text unreadable. The wikitext has been formatted in such a way in that it is NOT displayed as portrayed above.--Bob 00:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The above formating is the result of the way the nowiki tag works, but still shows the effect of breaking up sentences. And Pneumonia does not use the CITE templates at all, let alone inline. Sorry, but doing so is ugly and makes the wikitext unreadable. MUCH more consensed use of citing is needed inline with the detail in a ===Works cited=== subsection under ==References==. --mav 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you feel that this is better?: Bacteria were first seen in the airways of individuals who died from pneumonia by [[Edwin Klebs]] in [[1875]].<ref name=klebs>Klebs E. Beiträge zur Kenntniss der pathogenen Schistomyceten. VII Die Monadinen. ''Arch. exptl. Pathol. Parmakol.'' 1875 Dec 10;4(5/6):40-488.</ref> Initial work identifying the two common bacterial causes ''Streptococcus pneumoniae'' and ''Klebsiella pneumoniae'' was performed by [[Carl Friedländer]]<ref name=fried>Friedländer C. Über die Schizomyceten bei der acuten fibrösen Pneumonie.'' Virchow's Arch pathol. Anat. u. Physiol.'' 1882 Feb 4;87(2):319-324.</ref> and [[Albert Fraenkel]]<ref name=fraenkel>Fraenkel A. Über die genuine Pneumonie, Verhandlungen des Congres für innere Medicin. ''Dritter Congress''. 1884 April 21;3:17-31.</ref> in [[1882]] and [[1884]], respectively..

Just because it uses a non-standard template, it is just as difficult to read for the editor, and is not formatted in such a way as to make it easier to read. As stated below and previously, the citation method used in the AIDS article is seen to be best practice at the moment. And the way you would have us reference it would mean two sets of reference tables for the same set of references, either that or Harvard references which makes it hard to read, or incomplete references which cannot be verified. If you read the Talk:AIDS page you would have seen discussion on this point. --Bob 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is best practise at the moment. It's the fault of the >ref< system for needing inline citations. The article uses nicely standardised citation templates and formatting, and uses auto-numbered and linked references to make maintenance that much easier. Your proposed solution would not work properly since you have to have cited the reference once before >ref< will pick it up and display it. (And I don't think an alpahabetically sorted list of citations is amongst the currently used referencing systems anywhere on Wikipedia, but I could be wrong.) -Splash^talk 01:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What? How is that the fault of the ref system? All one needs is to have the detailed information about each reference in the references section and for the refs to be used to refer to that while using the minimal amount of text '<ref>{Smith et al, 2004, page 56)</ref>' <-- THAT is all you need inline. That is best practice. The detail should NOT be inline. --mav 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But then how would you construct the templated links in such a way that they get autonumbered when you rearrange the text? -Splash^talk 01:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand mav's suggestion, there would be one section of footnotes, produced by ref tags and autonumbered, but without detailed citations. The detail would go in a separate section which would be arranged alphabetically, not by the order they are referred to in the article (Smith et al would be filed under s, and would tell you where to find Smith's article). Mark^{your words} 17:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the suggestion; for the inline citations, put a simple thing within each <ref> tag (see J. R. R. Tolkien#Notes as an example), and move the bulk of the referencing into a separate "References" section. However, despite being actionable, I don't think this goes again any of the WP:WIAFA requirements and don't feel as if it is a valid reason for objection. AndyZ 21:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tolkien article uses the {{cite web}} within the text exactly like the AIDS article does, yet there is no objection to that. Your suggestion would be fine if there was under 10 references, but since there are a lot more, it is not practical to repeat references like that, especially when many references are referred to just once. What the suggestion asks for is a repitition of the reference section, ie, two sections for the same thing. The current method employs a way to automatically numerate the list with backlinks to every citation within the article, making it extremely reader-friendly.--Bob 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Tolkien article also has {{cite book}} within the text, and for the journal references, big chunks of hidden data as well with no standard format, which the {{cite journal}} would bring. Really, if both Tolkien and Pneumonia can be FA with hidden inline data to make up the the reference sections, then what is the problem with the AIDS article?--Bob 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Strong Support - I've been looking at the AIDS article for quite a while now. I was a heavy contributor last summer, and it was a mess; been checking in on it regularly ever since. Right now, it's lookin' really awesome, well referenced and well written. Great job to all involved, lets make this a featured article! JoeSmack ^Talk 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This article is excellently written. I went back to read WP:What is a Featured Article?, and found no mention of readability of wikitext as a criterion for featured status. Considering that, I am inclined to say mav's objection is not valid. I think it is simply silly to reject such a complete, well-written article that also happens to be NPOV on what could be a controversial topic, on such grounds. It is akin to judging the quality of a car on whether or not the factory that made it washes their floors every night. RyanGerbil10 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the article is in a huge mess. There are too many subsections and lists giving rise to a bloated ToC. Some sections serve as trivia while others are too short. Make sure you use minimal subsection (if possible avoid them). Secondly, much of the text is heavily US oriented: In the USA, the definition of AIDS is...; The majority of new AIDS cases in the United States; However, these assays are not specifically approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration etc. AIDS is a global phenomena and US specifics should not dominate the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment --Subsections have been removed, ToC has been reduced in size and is not disimilar to other FA's. The text has been modified so it is not heavily US orientated. --Bob 19:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The ToC is dissimilar to most other FAs I know of. The article also cries out for a summary. 76kb is a very long article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should read other FAs on scientific subjects then. Please see DNA_repair, Antarctic krill, Pneumonia and Action potential. All have similar ToCs. Other FAs are longer than this, and remember, about a third of the length is made up of references, external links and interwiki links. --Bob 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have objected to those articles too. I ignore references etc while estimating the page size. Taking 20 kb off would still result in a raw size of about 55kb. Summarise content here, move details to dedicated daughter articles. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the cite.php also increases page size. If you take out refs and cite.php and external links to other wikipedias, the size of the article is only 39kb, 40kb needs to be taken off to correctly estimate the size of the page... --Bob 18:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Presentation is one of the key points in a featured article. If it is not neatly presented and needless detail added to the page, it does not deserve the Featured tag. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you oppose to? Please make a point by point list detailing exactly what parts you object to and why. Please include subsections you object to and why, and what you think could be done to improve the article's presentation. Also, I have tried removing the subsections in the symptoms section, and it looked much worse. Without the point by point objection list, I would have to deem your objection unfounded. --Bob 17:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support.Oppose - not comprehensive: no section on social consequences of AIDS. It should discuss both the micro consequences (ostracism of carriers, etc.) and macro (threat to African economy, etc.).I'd exepct that those matters are important enough to deserve their own subarticle.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done --Bob 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start on the stigma section, although 1) bullet points are not the best style 2) I am sure it can be expanded 3) see also to external links is definetly not recommended. But there is still little on macro-level impact of AIDS - although quite a lot of relevant info is mixed into the 'Epidemiology' section. I think the economic impact of AIDS deserves its own section.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

- Will somehow make more... --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job. While I think those sections can be expanded even further, this can be done in their subarticles - they should be comprehensive enough for the current 'overview of AIDS' article. One last thing to be done is to go over those new sections and ilink some important concepts like 'economic growth, 'human capital', 'death rate', 'labor force' and such.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support Minor Oppose - Not for the reasons above, but rather, I'm a stickler for WP:LEAD sections to be of the appropriate size. In this case, it should be three paragraphs. I'd support otherwise. Fieari 21:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Three paragraphs is what it now is. --Bob 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Support now. Fieari 22:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that as I write this it's back up to six. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I really am a stickler for this. Removing my support until the lead is properly sized. It's "only" 4, but not only is it 4 paragraphs, those are also dense, long paragraphs. It's too much for a lead. Fieari 05:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been condensed and reduced to three --Bob 16:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Flip-flop, flip-flop... back to support. Good condensing! Fieari 19:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support Interesting and comprehensive. Brisvegas 10:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Thethinredline 08:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative Oppose Abstain A lot of work has gone into this, but I don't feel that it's suitable for FA:
  • Parts of the article read like an instruction manual, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. In particular the areas on the use of condoms, eg "They must be used during all penetrative sexual intercourse ..." and "It is essential to check the expiration date ..."

- rewording --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Weasel words are sometimes used. For example, "Other religious groups have argued that preventing HIV infection is a moral task in itself ..." - which religious groups?

- stated the Episcopalians --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The section about Uganda sounds like an argument in progress.

-The whole situation of the CNN and ABC is an argument in progress. Just listen to politicians and right wing nutbars on this subject --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the wikipedia article text could do with some cleaning up. Anything that uses "It must be noted that" is a red flag to me. Andjam 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Noted.--Bob 17:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The table of risk of infection sounds like original research - it gathers the risk on different infection routes from different sources, and comes up with a conclusion as to which routes are most dangerous. If there is a "league table" out there, wikipedia should cite it instead, and if there isn't, is there a good reason for wikipedia to create one? As a side note, in the table, does oral sex refer to sex involving male or female genitalia?

- stated the CDC source --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Maybe fewer research papers should be used, with more secondary sources instead, so that the number of references are reduced. The article ought to read like an encyclopedia article, not like a scientific paper. Also, scientific papers tend to be designed for scientists (and are often unavailable for non-scientists).

- most papers are available to the general public through open access or through their local college library --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• • The paragraph starting with "The definition of "alternative therapies" in AIDS has changed since that time ..." seems a bit flowery. It also lacks references.

- You want us to use less references, but you request some more here? ;-). I will see what I can dig up, but the whole alternative therapies section is flowery IMHO, and decent reliable references not using commercial sources is difficult at best. However... --Bob 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess most sources promoting alternative therapies would be commercial in nature, but what about sources keeping track of them? Wouldn't mainstream health researchers be interested in tracking the use in alternative therapies as they'd view it as a source of concern? Andjam 03:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I hope I'm not being too harsh. Thanks, Andjam 12:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive, and as it is a high-importance article, it has to be a bit long. Using too many daughter articles kills the prose, so I wouldn't recommend splitting it any more. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - can we please remove the reference citations from the lead and shift them into the main article body? I say this because the lead is only a very general summary of the most salient main points of the article — as no info should be in the lead that isn't dealt with further in the main article there is no need for references. The point of the lead is not to introduce specific facts: it is to be almost like an executive summary of the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply- the references were added to this section after the statements were frequently removed precisely because they were not backed up with references --Bob 17:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can still move them into the main body of the text. If people complain, point them to the body. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Reluctant support. There are a few places with unusual writing quality. —Eternal Equinox | talk 15:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object; excessively long lead (6 paragraphs!) and furthermore, "For more details on this topic" stuck in the middle of the lead. Incidentally, what's the difference between "For more details" and "main article"? Why have both? Why put some of them at the beginning of a section and some at the end? Too much bold used throughout article (just the title please), and inconsistent inline citation positioning throughout (citations should follow punctuation with no space in between to prevent line breaking, which is happening here and looks terrible). Also, the punctuation is sometimes used both before the citation and after. And still, too many subsections. Gigantic low resolution screen eating table in the "Transmission" section, with text jammed up against it (do something to add some space there). Numerous very short paragraphs. What's the copyright status of Image:ThreeColoredRolledUpCondoms.jpg? This is a good article, but as Nichalp said, it's a mess. This breaks so many basic formatting rules that it is almost deserving of a cleanup tag. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 04:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply

The Image:ThreeColoredRolledUpCondoms.jpg is Copyrighted Free Use as per the owner of the photograph. The name of the image has been changed to reflect the one that the person taking the photograph uploaded.

The lead was extended to six paragraphs because a section title was deleted. This has been rectified.

Regarding "For more details" and "main article"', main details links to the main article on that subject, further reading is just that, further reading. The formats are standard for every section.

Inline citation is now standardised.

There are now only 11 subsections listed.

Bolding has been reduced throughout.

The table has been reduced in size and formatted so a margin of 15px is found around it.

Are there any other specific points that one would have to address? --Bob 20:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work. I've been bold and made it so that there is only one extra link per section, and incorporated the rest into the prose itself. In my experience, that's the more typical formatting. My complaint about subsections wasn't related to the ToC, but to the size of some of them. The ones in the diagnosis section are pretty short, but that's not a big deal. Thanks for taking care of the rest of it. Reading through it, I still feel like the prose can use some improvement (some passive voice and somewhat choppy in places), so I'll go with a weak support. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 03:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Not well enough written for 2a. Here are some examples.

"It is a late stage of advanced HIV infection which leaves individuals prone to opportunistic infections and tumors." Starting this second sentence at the top with a thematic equative is laboured; there's a particular meaning here that is redundant (the late stage is the only thing that leaves individuals prone ...).

"world-wide"—no hyphen, one word.

"access to health care, age and other coexisting infections"—ambiguous.

"many different definitions"—middle word is redundant.

"peculiarities of the viral strain"—do you mean just "the viral strain"?

progression to death normally occurs within a year"—why not remove the first two words?

India based infections"—clumsy, and hyphen missing in any case.

Most instances of "also" need to be weeded out. A few of the monster sentences need to be chopped up.

A few stray upper-case letters in titles and subtitles.

Please get someone else to go through the text to polish it, and I'll change my object. Tony 16:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply I had a friend look over it and copyedit it, I applied these copedits today. Your objections noted above have been addressed, though I don't know which monster sentences you were referring to. If there are any specific points that we may have overlooked, please feel free to help out, as help from a pro would be appreciated in getting this article up to FA status. --Bob 22:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support In light of the prograss that has been made during this FAC. Vulcanstar6 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)