This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Timothy.do, Annette.chu1, Aivytran, Papnejas2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

The current draft submission reflects a neutral point of view with no blatant biases or positional stances. Although because this is a page regarding a product, it would be beneficial to add a section about Pros/Cons of OraQuick otherwise it would seem to be an ideal product for HIV testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar009 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… Most points stated in the article are verifiable with a variety of credible, freely available sources. Many of the claims are sourced to the product's website, but I think that is to be expected. The two major critiques I have are 1) in the lead there is a uncited claim that the test will cost "$40-45," and 2) the lead states that both OraQuick and the other home HIV test "provide confidential counseling and treatment referrals," but there's no further mention in the article of how those resources are provided by the test (especially the claim of confidentiality). Julialee2 (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… The edits formatted are consistent with Wikipedia's style. The edits' format is generally consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style. They use terms that are targeted more for the public audience and not so much towards Health Professionals. However, in terms of citing each specific statement, it'd be helpful to keep it more concise. For instance, for the statement "If a dark C-Line appears, then the test is working. The results are negative if only a C-Line is present. The results are positive if both a C-Line and T-Line appear. [6][9]," there is an unnecessary punctuation mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimhvo (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify… After reading through the wikipage and comparing it to the corresponding cited sources, I think this group did not show any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. I think they did a great job in summarizing key points from their sources and rewriting it in their own words. They effectively summarized and simplified the 7-minute video about how to perform the test from a seven-minute video into three simple steps in their own words. The only section that could use some re-wording is the "Accuracy" section. The sentences about the statistics are similar to the original article. For example, the wikipage states "The study found 4,902 out of 4,903 (99.9%) people were correctly reported a negative test result..." and the original source states "99.9% of people (4,902 out of 4,903) correctly reported a negative test result". Also, the sentence that states "subjects failed to obtain a test result" is the same. Understandably it is difficult to change the wording for statistical data, however, perhaps the group can consider summarizing the study results differently. Overall, awesome job! Mikobaya (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tar009 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, we would like to add more details to the following:

• Background/General information/How the test works/what makes it different from other tests - Annette
• How to do the test - Annette
• Reading/interpreting results - Annette
• Accuracy of the test
• Mention the customer service line for the "next steps" provided in the kit?

As we add more edits to the article, we also think it may be relevant to, at minimum, suggest links to other relevant Wiki-articles. One that comes to mind is "Diagnosis of HIV".

Annette.chu1 (talk) 04:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should include a history of HIV screening tests under the Background/General information section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.do (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Say what results mean. Annette.chu1 (talk) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a clearer picture of OraQuick: one of the box and one of the actual device. Where to find images that are okay to upload? Annette.chu1 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any images okay to use without violating copyrights. Annette.chu1 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can update the summary box to the right by adding/removing relevant content. For example, what is "Markets - World"? The website domain hyperlink should also start with "https://". We should also consider breaking up the page with sub headers, and check the references. Aivytran (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary box is a good idea. Subheaders have been created. Annette.chu1 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3661188/ Home HIV Testing: Good news but not game changer
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988264/ Home testing past, present, and future

I think these two articles give insight on the limits of Oraquick. Might be worth adding. Annette.chu1 (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? if not, specify... This does reflect a neutral point of view since this page is about a product so facts were stated in a nonbiased way. It might be useful to have on the page on how to obtain this product like if it's purchasable from CVS or do we have to order it from that company.Alison.chen (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? if not, specify... The article has cited secondary sources that are freely available for public use and most of the statements are supported. The citaitons are correctly formatted (after periods). Under principles section I would add where the information is from. I see that they have cited the package insert at the end of the paragraph, however, I'd like to see sources after 1-2 sentences. --Hosnat (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia's annual of style? if not, specify... Some of the wording was a little awkward. For example, I would have re-written "The study was conducted on 4,999 participants and found 4,902 out of 4,903 (99.9%) were reported a negative OraQuick result, and laboratory result" as "The study was conducted on 4,999 participants, and it found that 4,902 out of 4,903 participants (99.9%) generated a negative OraQuick results, which was also reflected in the results from the laboratory." I was confused about the addition of "laboratory result." Does it mean that they also ruled out as negative when they were also tested in a pathology lab? Further clarification is needed. Other than that, the edits mostly reflected the Wikipedia's manual of style. Good job, guys! Dlarrysa (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording and paraphrasing was done for all statistical reportings Aivytran (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copying violation? if yes, specify...

Include Manufacturer - bianca rojo

Manufacturer "OraSure Technologies" was in the right hand box under the image. I also added it to the first sentence. Thanks for suggestion. Annette.chu1 (talk) 06:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other products like OraQuick - bianca rojo

There is one other at home HIV test called "Home Access HIV-1 Test System" and it differs from Oraquick in that it requires blood and a longer processing time. I added this detail to the opening paragraph. Thanks for the suggestion! Annette.chu1 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of info, I created a section that compares Home Access HIV-1 Test and Oraquick. Annette.chu1 (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How has it been beneficial? Any statistics on how many people it has helped diagnose the disease in its early stages and what the health outcomes were? - bianca rojo

Is it expensive? - bianca rojo

It can be for some people. I added the prices I've seen on the internet to the article. Annette.chu1 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the article reflects a neutral point of view. I originally didn't see evidence of plagiarism. However, after using Wikipedia:Plagarism suggestion to copy and paste phrases in a search engine and comparing similarities between sentences I do think that some of the Accuracy Statistics are very similar. I also used a plagiarism detector that found plagiarism with the "and only 56 out of 5,055 (1.1%) subjects failed to obtain results" and "The study found that 4,902 out of 4,903...." with the oraquick website. Wikipedia suggests using an in-text attribution with or without quotation marks and paraphrasing followed by an inline citation to avoid this! I think adding the in-text attribution with quotes will make your life easier since stats are hard to completely paraphrase in your own words!- bianca rojo

Statistics were reworded especially for the final statistic about failed results. Additional content was added regarding false positives and negatives and need for additional confirmatory testing Aivytran (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]