User:Routarchita/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: Actuarial Society of South Africa HIV/AIDS models
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
  • This article focuses on the a series of mathematical models that were used by South African actuarial professions to assess the impact of HIV/AIDS in South Africa. These models were very significant in showing the progression of HIV/AIDS while also estimating the impact of extending the life of AIDS patients by using different measurable factors.

Lead

Guiding questions

Since the introductory sentence clearly explains what the ASSA AIDS Models stands for, as well as where it was located, the lead is both concise and clear. This article is quite short because there is not much information on these models; therefore, a quick summary describing who the models were made by and what they were used for is given in the Lead. The article presents information about the development of the models and some information about any problems, while the Lead only discusses the history/basic knowledge of the models. This leads to the conclusion that the Lead does not include any information that is not present in the article. Since the article is quite short, the Lead is concise and is very straight to the point on describing the model.

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions

Since the article's topic is about the models and the impact these models made on the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the content is definitely related to the topic. The content also includes information from 2008 and 2012, showing that the article includes relevant information from more recent years; however, there is no information on specific individuals/actuarial scientists that actually contributed to the model. Although the Actuarial Society of South Africa is a separate article, there must be specific individuals that contributed to these models in the society, so this is information that should be added. Additionally, 2012 is more than five years ago, so it would be beneficial to add more information from more recent years.

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

The tone remains neutral because there are no opinions. Additionally the article includes different types of models and the differences between them, never stating that a specific model is better/worse than another. The articles emphasizes the impact that these models had, as well as their effect on society. The whole article remains neutral and does not have any language that tries to persuade the reader.

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions

Based on the sources listed, there seems to be many secondary sources of information including many digital archived information from Wayback Machine. These include publications made by an AIDS committee as well as public health records. There are no documents used that are created specifically by an actuarial scientist from the Actuarial Society of South Africa other than statistics and information about the actual models. Unfortunately, when clicking on the links, an error is shown, showing that it is hard to actually obtain the sources; however, when clicking on the given links, one is found to be a dead link, while the other two go to the necessary page. Most of the sources come from the year 2012, showing that it is not the most current since it has been more than five years since the sources were published. This means that it would be beneficial for more research to be done, and more current information be added. Additionally, based on the sources that were able to be searched, the information very much relates to the topic, making them great sources.

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions

Although the article is quite short, it is divided in a way that makes it very easy to read, making each paragraph specific to the information that is being discussed. There are no errors that are noticed and the information is organized while also being short and concise.

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions

There is only one logo that is used on the page and that is the logo of the Actuarial Society of South Africa, which is the caption of the photo. The article would benefit by including pictures of members of the society, or even the math that the models use. This image is placed at the beginning of the article, allowing the reader to view it when they first reach the page, making the placement visually appealing. Additionally, the image is cited; ensuring that copyright regulations are followed.

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

Most of the talk page discussed the sources used and whether or not the article should be deleted back in 2012. Many first agreed that most of the sources came from primary source documents, but many also agreed that this can be changed by adding more information, which many people did. This article was voted to be kept, mostly because many people thought these models played a fundamental role in this epidemic and that this article could be greatly improved if more information could be added. The talk page also included that these messages were included under a discussion about about Science-related Deletions. The article has been rated as B class and high importance under WikiProject Africa, a project with the effort of of improving the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. It is very clear that individuals clearly talk about the article and information and data is pulled to support an individuals statements, which is a little different than discussing something in class, because these discussions are more data/information based rather than interpretation of information.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

After a debate on whether or not the article should be deleted, it was finally established that the article should be kept. The article does a good job on discussing how these models were used and the role they played in the epidemic; however, there is a lack of information in the history of the models, the scientists that actually helped, as well as what exactly these models consisted of. Adding more current information, as well as information from when these models were first created and what they consisted of would make the article more detailed, as well as more informational. Because of these conclusions, the article is most underdeveloped because there is a lot of information that can be added, and should be added to have a better understanding of the topic.

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: