User:Nicolekoonce/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Abortion in Uganda
 * I was in Uganda this summer for the Loewenstern fellowship. I am interested in the topic because I noticed that most people are aware of modern family planning methods and will discuss their use openly, but hardly anyone talks about abortion because of its illegality, despite the fact that unsafe abortions are common and cost many women their lives.

Lead evaluation

 * I think it is a good idea to start the lead with a sentence about the legality of abortion in Uganda, which has been done, however there is a grammatical error and I believe it could open a bit more broadly than it does.
 * There is not a description of the article's major sections
 * The lead addresses briefly the topic of maternal deaths due to unsafe abortion but does not later discuss it in the article.
 * The lead is concise but should perhaps be expanded to be a better introduction to the topic and introduce the sections of the article.

Content evaluation

 * Yes, the content is relevant
 * The content is not completely up to date. For example, it references the relevant 2000 MDG and doesn't mention the more current relevant SDG's or their impact. The statistics should also be updated.
 * There is definitely some content that is missing, mostly along the lines of maternal morbidity and mortality due to abortion complications. As another user commented, information could also be added about the roles of culture and religion and current policy issues. I think a section about the roles that NGO's and INGO's are playing in terms of reproductive health and maternal mortality could also be important.
 * There is also one sentence that discusses female life expectancy in Uganda, but puts it in terms of a percentage, which does not make sense.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The article is neutral in tone.
 * There don't seem to be any claims that are heavily biased. The only thing I might correct in terms of tone and representation of viewpoints is that currently the article says "Movements such as Pro-Life Uganda (Pro-Life Uganda) and Pro-Choice Uganda (Pro Abortion)" and it is incorrect to equate a pro-choice movement with the term pro-abortion. It's a small difference in words, but an important one. The article could take out that "pro-abortion" parenthetical reference or it could change it to something like "pro-legal abortion"
 * I don't think any viewpoints are underrepresented or overrepresented. Just the issue of the way the author referenced the pro-choice movement.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any position.

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are some sentences containing numerical data that are not linked to a citation. But the citations that are linked are reliable secondary sources.
 * The sources do not seem to cover all of the available literature on the topic given the missing information in the article about maternal morbidity and mortality, the issue as it relates to current SDG progress, etc.
 * The sources are relatively current, but a few more updated ones could be added.
 * The links to sources seem to work.

Organization evaluation

 * The article is not entirely well-written. There are a few sentences which are clearly missing words and the overall flow of the paragraphs is not very clear or logical.
 * Yes, the article has some grammatical errors.
 * The article is broken into a few sections that reflect a few major points, but is missing sections that are relevant to the topic. The sections are organized well for the information that is there, but not for overall coverage of the topic.

Images and media evaluation

 * There are no images in this article.
 * I think an image or two, maybe of a map or something relevant to the maternal mortality SDG could enhance understanding of the topic.

Talk page evaluation

 * There have only been two comments added on the article's talk page and they are by the same user. The user suggested, as I am here, adding more sections to the article and pointed out that it is generally limited in its coverage of the topic.
 * The article is rated as C-Class and as low-importance. It is part of the WikiProject Africa.
 * I think Wikipedia's discussion of this topic is just far less comprehensive in scope than it would be if it were a topic we were addressing in class. It could go in a lot more directions we might go in too, including addressing policy/economic impact.

Overall evaluation

 * The article covers some of the very basic information about abortion laws in Uganda and the requirements that must be met for a physician to perform an abortion, but it is very bare-bones.
 * The article's strength is probably its neutrality and unbiased tone, given the topic can be politically or religiously charged.
 * The main areas of improvement for this article are the addition of more relevant content to this topic as well as the addition of updated statistics on the topic, and a better structuring of the sections and the paragraphs within each section.
 * I would say this article is underdeveloped.

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: Talk:Abortion in Uganda