Wikipedia:Peer review/Bugchasing/archive1

Bugchasing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

This article regards bugchasing, the intentional pursuit of HIV infection by some gay men. Its prevalence is not known, but it appears to be exceedingly rare.

It recently passed a Good Article nomination and was featured on the main page through DYK, where it received over 30,000 views.

I am looking to improve it on the prose and explanation level. I have consulted almost every piece that has been published on the subject in the English language and it is, I think, as complete as Wikipedia policy and guidelines allow. (In particular, there is some psychological research that exists, but it contravenes our medical sourcing requirements, so it is omitted.) I am hoping this to be an featured article candidate.

Thanks, Urve (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Comfortable Chair

"Alt" for the picture, and elaborations on what it is (a scanning electron micrograph) would be useful.
I am a little doubtful if the quote in the quotebox of "Group dynamics" adds any extra value to the article. Since it is quoting just one member of the community, and it is visibly popping out in the section, it could be perceived as a true representation of how most giftgivers in the bugchasing community feel, when it is difficult to ascertain so. Now that itself would not be too much of an issue for me, but the quote borders on sensationalization — especially when contents of the quote are already described in a formal manner in the section — which is why I fail to see its encyclopediac value.
Describe "de-sexed" with a note or in brackets.
"But it existed by at least 2003," — Why not use "1997", referencing the earlier Newsweek article?
Structurally it would work a lot better if content regarding the Rolling Stone article could be grouped together under one section. Describing a socio-political reaction to an article ("Group dynamics") before even describing what the article was and why it was important ("History") disrupts the flow because of fragmented descriptions of a singular event.
Instead of using "scholar", consider describing professions more precisely ("ethnographer" for instance).

That is all I can point out for now, and I wish you all the best for the future featured article nomination. I also have a peer review request open — do consider leaving some feedback! Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will take a look at this all as availability allows. Appreciate your guidance in the GAN and here. Urve (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! I have made these changes, which hopefully helped with flow. Regarding the sensationalization, I agree - it seemed so surprising that I thought, it must be included, but it is precisely because of how surprising it is that it must be omitted till there's future research. Urve (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]