Talk:HIV/AIDS in Lesotho

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): STohme. Peer reviewers: Sravi12, Mlk10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits to page

Hi all, I plan to edit this page by reorganizing it into specific subsections, including prevalence, history, cultural background, main causes of the pandemic, efforts to control, and any barriers to treatment (both cultural and economical). Many of the links on this page do not work, so I aim to fix them, and to also add more references to the page, as there are only 2 at the moment. My user page contains some references I plan to use in my revisions of this page, and more information on my proposed edits. STohme (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Plan to expand this page

I have created a detailed outline of the expansions I want to make to this page. I will keep the Prevalence and National response sections, although I will be reorganizing them and adding more recent data to them. I will be adding three new sections: Risk factors, Barriers to Treatment, and Economic Impact. Risk factors will include the following subsections: cultural attitudes, violence against women, serodiscordant couples, and sexual education; Barriers to treatment will include the subsections political factionalism, lack of basic resources, TB co-infection, and adherence to treatment. I have found scholarly references for each section, and their respective subsections. While there is much more information that can go under these sections, I will not have time to research them all, so feel free to add relevant information to these sections! STohme (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Updates

I have created a new outline for this page according to my plan (detailed on my talk page). I am slowly developing each subsection of this article now that the basic framework has been laid out. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions for how to further expand my page! STohme (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review

Indicate the key areas of the page that would most benefit from improvement (referencing, content, readability, neutrality, images, additional blue links, etc.) Be as specific as possible.

Overall, I really loved your article! I think for the initial contribution it was wonderful! It was well written, thoughtful, thorough, comprehensive, and informative! You used appropriate neutral tone, reputable citations, and a wide variety of sources with information and perspectives from all around the world. I loved the fact that you delved into the history of governmental response to HIV / AIDS before talking about the global consequences of the epidemic and going into its effect on the country and its citizens. My favorite part of your article was the included section on violence against women, which was a consequence of HIV / AIDS that I had never thought of and had never related to customary laws before.

The changes I would suggest making to your article would be: - Breaking up the national response section into smaller, more manageable sections - Changing the name of the “risk factors” section to something more appropriate like consequences of HIV/AIDS epidemic - Going through your article another time to check for silly grammar errors - Expanding the barriers to treatment section - Adding related images - FIXING YOUR LEAD! This is the biggest one

All of these additions would benefit your article because a better lead and intriguing images would help to encourage readers to read your article; breaking up the national response section would make reading the article more manageable and less daunting to readers, as well as help them to focus in on a specific time period / initiative they are interested in; and going through your grammar to ensure that readers do not stop reading due to being off put by silly mistakes. I’m sure when you’re done with the other sections they will be just as wonderful as what you currently have AWESOME JOB SO FAR! Mlk10 (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Overall, you did a wonderful job with the article and I really enjoyed learning about this topic through the information you have included. In particular, you used an effective structure that addressed different aspects surrounding this topic, which made the article more comprehensive. I thought the information about cultural attitudes was really interesting to learn about, especially the statistics included in that section. I'm excited to see how you continue to develop the barriers to treatment section as the categories listed under that section sound really intriguing, especially the adherence to treatment section!

With the current article, I would suggest the following changes: 1) I agree with Mack that the national response should be broken down into sub-sections. As a reader, it becomes overwhelming to sift through the amount of information that is current in the section. Having separate sub-sections will provide a structure that the reader can use to guide their reading of the information. 2)Make sure to fix any grammatical errors because doing so will allow readers to solely focus on the content of the article and not any distracting errors. 3)In the violence against women section, consider how some of the statements can integrated with the references to more precisely represent the studies in terms of the data presented, in more specific terms, rather than overstated claims. This will strengthen the claims in the section and creating a more data-based foundation for the information presented. 4)Make sure to add related images as Mack also indicated. 5)The most important area for improvement is the lead. Improving the lead will allow the article to be more complete and provide a framework when readers first view the page to understand the scope of the topic and the factors that will be addressed. In addition, the importance of the topic should be conveyed through the neutral claims you make in this lead as well.

Overall, you did a great job and with these improvements the article will be even stronger! I look forward to seeing the additional contributions you will make!

Sravi12 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Small Improvements

Interesting and informative article.

But as an African living in South Africa, who is Mosotho as well though Northern Sotho and not Southern Sotho of Lesotho, I decided to remove all "Basotho people". Basotho already means Sesotho speaking people. Saying Basotho people is almost like saying a Frenchman man! The "Ba" before "sotho" classify people as opposed to things. Like a I called myself Mosotho: "Mo" is for one person.

And even "the Basotho" is kink of nonsensical in meaning. Just Basotho is it. Rangoane Mogosoane (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)