Talk:HIV/AIDS in Malawi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article revision[edit]

As part of an intensive course study at Rice University, I intend to expand this article to give readers a multi-dimensional perspective on the social, cultural, political, and economic effects of HIV/AIDS in Malawi. This epidemic is both a cause and symptom of the many problems facing Malawi today, including widespread poverty, food insecurity, and infectious disease; therefore, the Malawian government has acknowledged that a successful response will require a multi-dimensional approach. Wikipedia currently has several articles relating to this topic, including Malawi and Healthcare in Malawi, but these articles do not contain in-depth analyses of the epidemic, even though HIV/AIDS is the number one cause of death in Malawi. In addition, Wikipedia has dozens of articles addressing the impact of HIV/AIDS on various nations, and most of these articles address the topic more thoroughly than this article, even though HIV/AIDS prevalence rates in Malawi are among the highest in the world. I plan to expand this article by describing the scope of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Malawi (drawing a distinction between urban and rural settings); beliefs about the risk of contracting HIV among people living in rural Malawi; the impact of local beliefs on prevention and treatment strategies; how existing sexual networks influence the spread of HIV in Malawi; the societal impact of HIV/AIDS on men, women, and children; the impact of HIV/AIDS on the Malawian economy; and the effectiveness, both in terms of cost and scope, of various domestic and international interventions.

Do you think this expanded article should address any other aspects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Malawi? I welcome your comments and suggestions! Thanks!

Jak8 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Suggestions[edit]

Hi there,
I think that your work on the article so far has been great, you've done a lot to expand the content making it a better rounded, and more comprehensive article. The article, however, lacks significant sourcing (11 total sources), and as a result, lacks authorial and academic diversity. Providing more evidence to support your claims would significantly improve the quality of the article. Keep up the great work!
Jpoles1 (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hi Jpoles1,

Thank you for your suggestion! As I have continued expanding the article, I have incorporated more sources. The article currently cites 17 sources, and I intend to incorporate at least one more source. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions.

Best, Jak8 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Feedback[edit]

Jak8, I commend you for your well organized and comprehensive contribution to this article! The explanation of the study that surveyed 57 Malawian men was very helpful in substantiated the claims that were made as a result of the study. Could you add a brief explanation of the other studies you reference? (specifically reference #5). Great job! I look forward to seeing your future efforts with this article. Brookeethleen (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Response[edit]

Hi Brookeethleen,

I appreciate your feedback! I included brief descriptions of the other studies I referenced in the article.

Thanks, Jak8 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:HIV/AIDS in Malawi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)

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.

Assessment[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the 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. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
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 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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

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:

  • Yes check.svg Done Review images for copyright concerns
    • I question the relevance of "man with loaded bicycle" and "woman cooking"
  • Yes check.svg 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

Close paraphrasing issue - resolved[edit]

    • "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)

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)

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

Conclusion[edit]

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)

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)
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)

Finishing off to meet some GA criteria[edit]

Well done to contributor(s) on getting this article listed as a Good Article. I think there is a good deal of useful information here. I don't wish to be a party-pooper, but I just clicked on it, and I was somewhat struck by the brevity of the lead section. I then read through it, and it does not provide an adequate overview of the article per WP:Lead, a GA criteria. Some, what appear to be important, elements in an understanding of the topic are missing from the lead: the National AIDS Control Programme, a coordinated response, Banda ... had prevented the public from accessing information about the epidemic, gained access to antiretroviral drugs in 2003, etc, from the History section. I can't see anything from the Awareness and risk perception section, or the Education section, etc. The lead needs to be built up to meet the requirements of WP:Lead, otherwise it could be delisted. Also, a number of the images appear to have questionable relevance to the topic, such as File:Composting in Malawi.jpg, File:Future families - Hope, a Community Health Worker (7497778302).jpg, and File:LocationMalawi.png: see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, a GA criteria. I also was concerned by the focus and detail of the Awareness and risk perception section. The foregrounding phrase in that section is "Various studies have demonstrated...", which puts the emphasis on the studies, rather than on the information gained from the studies. This is not an essay attempting to convince the reader of a position - it is a general encyclopedia, which is assumed to be based on the main sources. Supporting arguments, or emphasising the sources are out of place here. If the phrase is cut we get the essential information: "Knowledge regarding HIV/AIDS is high...." If that statement is in doubt, then it needs to be balanced by views from opposing statements, rather than supported on its own by saying that the view is demonstrated by various sources. See WP:NPOV, another GA criteria, for why this matters. The section then goes into excessive detail and statistics: "When 57 Malawian men were interviewed in 2003, 100% of them said they had heard about the HIV/AIDS epidemic on the radio, and 84.2% of them said they had learned about HIV/AIDS during their visits to local health facilities". What is the essential point being made here that a reader of a general encyclopedia needs to know? That 57 men were interviewed in 2003? Or that there is an effective programme of HIV/AIDS awareness in Malawi? So there are concerns about focus, a GA criteria (3b). There are also concerns about the prose being clear and concise (criteria 1a). I am also concerned about general clear communication of basic and essential information, such as that Malawi has one of the highest percentages of AIDS in the world, and that while it has brought the percentage down from around 15% in 2006, it is still running at 10%. I think there is good information in the article, but it needs some tweaking to bring it out in a manner that is clear and helpful to the general reader. I'll provide advice and assistance to contributors who wish to work on resolving these issues. Please ping me for questions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)