User:Angelina4118/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Sudans

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I wanted to learn about Sudan and South Sudan's region, and also briefly learn why it was split into two.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The first sentence is brief and straight to the point, it emphasis that there is two Sudans and tells a general location of it. It does not go into the main details of the articles contents though. The first paragraph does give a brief overview of the region, but as you keep reading you can tell there is a lot of key information missing. One of the main things missing is the reason as to why Sudan is split into two if there's any. What the content described is somewhat related to the topic because it does mention how the region is battling desertification. However, it could have gone into more details about the animals this is directly effecting and the long-term consequences of this. The content is somewhat up to date but there are more recent sources that could improve the article, the most recent source is from 2013. The article has a very neutral tone however that could be because there is no controversy in the topic. It does mention that the region is threatened by hunting but does not mention if the hunting is by sport or for human resources needed for basic living. That could be argued to be biased since it seems like there is a chunk of information missing. After reviewing some of the sources they listed I would categorize them as a bit weak. Most of them are articles from newspapers like the NY times and the Economist, I did not see any books that could have had a focus on the region. The articles themselves seem a bit outdated but the links do work. The images do enhance the article as they highlight some of the regions beauty and geography. There are a couple poor word choices but overall the writing is clear and concise and has a decent organization that allows the reader to comprehend the material better. The article overall status is a C, it does need upgrading but gives alright information. it is a good starting point for those who are willing to make the article go more in depth. The articles strength is definitely describing the regions themselves but as I previously mentioned it could have gone into details why Sudan was split into two.