User:HistoryandLiterature/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * HIV/AIDS in Uganda: HIV/AIDS in Uganda
 * One of the researchers I've been looking at, James P.M. Ntozi, seems to do a lot of research on HIV/AIDS social consequences in Uganda.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. It explains that HIV in Uganda in the 1980s-90s was a huge problem.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No it does not.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly detailed. It is five paragraphs long and goes into very specific details.

Lead evaluation
The Lead is entirely too long and overly detailed. Much of the information presented could go under History or a new section called "Government's Response."

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. It is all related to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It appears that their have been sporadic edits and contribution within the past three years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article mentions the HIV/AIDS crisis in Senegal. This seems like it doesn't belong. There is also an opinion presented as a view without citation under History.

Content evaluation
Overall the content looks good. There could be more sections to help reorganize, such as a "Government's Response" section. It is also missing a few citations.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Mostly. The mentioned above opinion is not. Second paragraph of criticism.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Under criticism, the writer does seem to be biased against evangelicals teaching abstinence and no condom use.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not believe so.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It does seem to be trying to persuade the reader to be in favor of condom use.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is good everywhere except under criticism, where the author presents certain things as facts, and where the author does not cite certain viewpoints.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All except a viewpoint under Criticism.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There are a lot of sources, many of which appear to be academic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Nothing within the past 5 years but mostly from 2000-2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, looks like a great example of citing. The only issue is the one opinion under Criticism.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I think there should be another section titled "Government's Response" to help shorten the Lead and the History.

Organization evaluation
Again, other than a few slight issues, I think this article is organized well. It could use one more section on the Ugandan government's response to help with the flow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images on this page.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Editors are discussing clarity of style and legitimacy of sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated start. It says it is of interest to certain WikiProjects. It was also the subject of two different Wiki Education Foundation assignments.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It seems to be a bit more Eurocentric and Americanized in the Talk page rather than focusing on how local scientists and politicians reacted.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is polite and efficient in working on the article. However, the editors do not necessarily seem to be looking at this from a nuanced perspective.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * started
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * okay organization, lots of dates and background
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information on local scientists and politicians as well as another area to help with the flow or organization.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped

Overall evaluation
The article is just started. It has a decent organization and includes many dates and a lot of background information. My main concerns are that it seems a bit one-sided in its general view as it focuses more on American responses. I also think it could use a sections titled "Government Response" and "International Aid" to help with the flow.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: