User:Rhea.arts/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Religion and HIV/AIDS

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

When thinking about the history of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the religious response stands out in societal reactions. I think that because of homophobia deeply rooted in Christian communities, people who have contracted HIV may not access the healthcare they need either because it is not available or because of the shame and stigma around the virus. This topic would also open investigations of global health disparities and the impact of colonialism on healthcare and religious ideas. However, I think that because religion is also central to so many people's lives there could be positive aspects of this relationship as well, and I was curious about the current state of easily accessible information on this topic.

Evaluate the article

The first sentence of the lead does explain the topic of the article clearly and concisely, but could be better in setting the tone and in grammatical structure; right now all it says is that there has always been a relationship between religion and HIV/AIDS, while I think it would benefit from immediately introducing the idea that this relationship has been fraught and complex. Although the article addresses different religions, the lead only introduces different Christian denominations.

The content appears is relevant to the content, but features gaps in both religious attitudes towards individuals infected and towards treatment/prevention. Another gap is in the discussion of AIDS amongst lesbians–who have been underrepresented in AIDS activism for decades–and the impact of these religious attitudes on people living with HIV. Most of the information is on Christianity, but I doubt that this is due to a lack of sources; more likely, the editors have just not found and included this information. While much of the information on church actions surrounding HIV/AIDS are rather recent (2020 being the most recent source; thus, even they should likely be revisited), much of the reported events and attitudes are 10+ years old. One particular issue I had with dated information is that the only reference to views of AIDS as a "punishment" for LGBTQ+ behaviors involves Jerry Falwell, when in reality this narrative does still exist.

Although the article retains a mostly neutral tone and doesn't overtly attempt to sway the reader one way or another–I especially appreciated its acknowledgement that there is no central Jewish authority, thus not attempting to make claims it cannot support–I detected bias against Islam just in the inclusion/exclusion of information. The focus of the section on Islam implies, unlike the section on Christianity and Judaism, that all imams and Muslims believe that AIDS is a punishment for sinning, which supports the stereotype of Muslims as very strict and conservative. Including varying viewpoints on this matter would improve the article's neutrality. Otherwise the writing is clear and well-organized, though as previously mentioned I would like to see another section for the individual impacts of living in the intersection of religion and HIV.

The links work. Sources are provided for claims, though many are dated. Further, some of the sources which suggest positive attitudes toward HIV-positive individuals in Christianity come from the churches themselves, which may be biased to appear more welcoming than in reality. Many sources are news articles, but I think meta-analyses of religious involvement in HIV prevention/treatment and surveys of HIV-positive individuals' experiences with religion would improve the article. There are no pictures demonstrating the services offered by churches; the article doesn't seem to suffer as a result of this lack, but as long as there are copyright-free images available I don't see how the inclusion could hurt.

Overall, the article is a good starting point for teaching people on the attitudes towards HIV/AIDS in different religious groups. However, it is underdeveloped in addressing the teachings and actions of most world religions and could do better to address different viewpoints. Other editors on the talk page have identified the same issues as myself and emphasize the importance of differentiating between actual authorities in the religion and popular sects; although a sect leader may not hold the same authority as a central figure, the impact they may have is still notable and relevant to the topic at hand. One strength of the article is in its organization because the level 1 headers make sense, they just need more detailed and varied information under them.