Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of HIV-positive people

List of HIV-positive people

Self-nomination. I hope this could become the third, I think, featured people list on wikipedia. A peer review can be found here where I think all the comments were addressed. There are 271 persons in this list, all with a reliable reference. I think it meets all the criteria. One of the reasons I worked on this list, is that I encountered it (in a bad old version) all over the net. Sometimes even used as a source. So I wanted to improve and complete that version. Garion96 (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support... erg, I think you broke the number of references record ;) Renata 23:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support As creator of List of notable brain tumor patients, I'm giving this my wholehearted endorsement. Garion96 modeled this work after that page and List of people with epilepsy (both featured lists) and sought extensive feedback for this detailed and impressively referenced list. I think this page has become one of the best lists at Wikipedia, and on an important topic. Durova 01:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support As someone who has helped a bit with editing this list, I've been highly impressed by the thoroughness that Garion96 has applied to it. I think the list has become a very useful, reliable educational resource. Trezatium 08:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fabulous work referencing all that. One comment - I realise you've put the sections alphabetically, but I'd probably be tempted to put "Miscellaneous" at the end, as it includes anyone who doesn't fit the other sections. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 08:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved it to the end. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was initially a bit worried about this list, on grounds of privacy and potential for unsubstantied claims, but the list really is very good. However, the selection criteria seem a little vague to me. I mean, there are thousands of people who could appear in this list, so this list is only a subset of the people who could potentially be listed (for example, does everyone in Category:HIV-positive people and Category:AIDS-related deaths appear?). I guess the list is limited to people who (a) are confirmed confirmed by a reliable source to have been infected with HIV (which will remove some candidates), and (b) who "have either made notable contributions to their chosen fields or are significant in the history of AIDS". My query is really how we verify the second criterion. Is it sufficient that they already have a Wikipedia article? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone included in those two categories also appears in the list, unless no reliable reference has been found. As you suggested, the criteria are that the person has a Wikipedia article plus a reliable reference. Garion96 has compiled a list of people with articles suggesting HIV infection, but for whom a reliable reference has not yet been found. Trezatium 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've changed the intro to simplify the criteria for inclusion. Do you think this is an improvement? Trezatium 07:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. You mustn't self-ref wikipedia, especially the Wikipedia namespace. I'm not sure you need to mention notability at all since it is a basic rule on Wikipedia that lists of people cannot include non-notable people, and a simple definition of notability would be the ability to support a Wikipedia article. It would be acceptable to list people without articles, if one could reasonably be expected to be written. Also, many lists don't include the list title in bold since it often makes the English clumsy – what makes a consise title doesn't necessarily make good prose. So you could just say "This is a categorised, alphabetical list of people who are HIV-positive". Colin°^Talk 08:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Trezatium 08:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone has any suggestions for highly notable individuals not featured in the list because they don't have articles in Wikipedia then I might have a go at creating the necessary articles. Trezatium 11:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a great list, though there are two observations I'd like to make. First is my regular pet peeve regarding the absence of a section dedicated to scientists. Second, the heavy representation of Americans in this list (likely due to the nature and provenance of the sources) may warrant an explanation somewhere on the lead. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a Science section but it was deemed to be too small, and was merged with Miscellaneous. Trezatium 11:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. Just checking. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Concerning your second observation, isn't the {{Dynamic list}} tag sufficient for that? If more articles are created (and sources are found) eventually the list will be less American centric. Garion96 (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that template does the trick. Didn't think of that. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've already made some comments during peer review. The references are very good. I agree with the suggestion of moving the Misc to the end. Wrt scientists – there was only one so I suggested the section be dropped or expanded. There isn't such a section in the epilepsy list for the same reason. The brain tumor list now has 9 scientists and is comparable in size (236 names vs 274). I guess the brain tumor list can serve as a reference-point if we think it affects anyone at random - so you are left with certain occupations being more notable than others. The demographics of HIV may (in some way) account for the lack of scientists - the Sports section is also under-represented. I'm not sure the over-representation of Americans warrants explanation in the lead. I imagine there is a similar bias in terms of en-Wikipedia articles. Certainly more research of e.g. UK newspapers could help balance things. I hope the guys keep working on it as I'm sure it could expand further. But its big/comprehensive enough to be featured now. Colin°^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only suggestion I'd like to reiterate from the peer review is the possiblity of including HIV/AIDS releated info in the Comments field. Both the brain tumor, epilepsy and hepatitis C lists include this extra detail, where available. I think it enhances the encyclopedic value of the list and gives examples to some of the statistics that are mentioned either in the lead or in the disease-article itself. I'd apprecitate if other reviewers could say if they agree with this suggestion or like it just as it is. Colin°^Talk 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Yes, I also would like more input on that. The reason it wasn't added was that for so few people there was information on that. Right now it's only mentioned on entries which are 'significant in the history of AIDS'. Garion96 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like it as it is. If as Garion says there's only a few people with that extra info then I don't see much of a point in adding it. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]