User:Johnplockwood/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Juba

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the entry on Juba, South Sudan because I plan to write my article about South Sudan. Learning about Juba will help me understand the state of the nation and gain an insight into possible sources on South Sudan and areas where information may be deficient. Juba is South Sudan's capital (for the time being) and its largest city. Thus, it provides insight into the available literature on the nation itself. My impression of the article was that it was lacking in many areas with many of the sections being stubs or lacking sufficient, unbiased citations. The quality of writing was not very high and the sourcing was spotty. Additionally, it lacked images which could help the article. There were conflicting pieces of information in the article and there were many speculative or opinion-based statements that did not belong. The quality of the article was far below many of its peer articles (other national capitals) and displays the shortcomings of scholarly research on South Sudan.

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 article on Juba gives a brief introduction about the city, giving the most important information followed by a brief writeup of its history. The history portion is expanded upon in the first subsection. Though it generally has links, there are unfamiliar terms but that is largely a function of the knowledge gap. The history section is lengthy but not comprehensive. It leaves many topics unexplained and has large gaps between years. There are times where it is out of order or presented in a muddled manner. The government section lays a solid foundation, including information that was accurate but is no longer up to date. It also lacks links to unfamiliar topics and is not as in-depth as it should be. The transportation section addresses many infrastructure projects in the city and goes relatively in-depth into discussing them. However, this section has grammatical issues and there is not a clear reason as to why that section fits where it does. Demography is well sourced but not comprehensive, however it is clear that constraints on knowledge about this area hold the section back. Following that section, the economy section includes subjective language and makes many claims without citations. The information is also relatively outdated and in need of a serious update. The education section is not ample and is only a bulleted list, providing no substantive information. Likewise, the health services section is a list of hospitals with even fewer details than the education system and no clear reason for being present. The climate and climate change sections are well-sourced though could likely be condensed and streamlined. They could use more objective language and better citations but they are informative. The places of worship section is similar to the education and health services section, except formatted in paragraph form and placed between two unrelated sections.