User:Shafataryan/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Agroecology in Latin America)

(Urban horticulture)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose agroecology in Latin America for my area article, as there weren't any other articles that looked at agroecology in Argentina, however, this article does a good job going over the larger history/science/impact of the agrocological revolution in Latin America.)

(I chose urban horticulture as it quite directly relates to the project operations of Voluntario Global that I'd be working on. The project's operations primarily involve working withe local community garden in a suburb of Buenos Aires, and this article provides a pretty good overview of the history, benefits, and production practices of urban horticulture.)

Evaluate the article
(Seems like a pretty standard wikipedia article, well-sourced (around 30), some of them include academic papers. Has a succinct lead section- goes over what agro-ecology is as well as summarising its cultural/historical/political significance in Latin America. Content also seems up to date and pretty thorough- history, benefits, role in society, etc.

This brings into question whether the article has neutral tone. Can an article really be neutral if it doesn't mention any existent/potential pitfalls/shortcomings of agroecology in Latin America?

I have to admit, not all facts/claims have a footnote, but that could be a simple oversight.

The talk page is relatively short, only a couple texts about someone proposing some additions/new changes as well as restructuring the article.

This article also has sections of agro-ecology in action in specific countries- a paragraph on Mexico and a blurb on Cuba. This could definitely be improved up on by giving examples from sources that look at the effects of agro-ecology implementation in other Latin American countries.

Overall, I liked this article, it's comprehensive in that it has a lot of good sections, but as with all articles there's definitely room for improvement in its citations and sources, as well as its country-examples list.)

(The urban horticulture article also seems pretty thorough and comprehensive- content-wise. A lot of historical, and contemporary context, good lead explaining what urban horticulture is along with photos for helpful reference. Lots of cool and relevant sections including but not limited to its history, benefits and production practices.

All these generally positive sections again make me confused about the article's tone, since there's really no negatives mentioned about urban horticulture or its costs on communities. However, I did notice in the talks section that the examples used are apparently not-so-successful and that this article warrants/should include some of the more successful examples of urban horticulture.

The talk section shows that the article has a level 5 vital scale and is in the wikiprojects of Urban studies and planning and Horticulture and gardening. The talk section itself is quite short, only one individual had rightfully commented that one of the article's editions had an outdated definition of urban horticulture, and that the latest definition should include Urban Horticulture's life on Community movement and that it's been an urgent response to 'current city problems.'

Overall, this paper could certainly be improved. This paper has one section of uses/applicaitons- A poorly sourced example from Africa. I could definitely see ways to include sections for its applications in Argentina, or other Latin American countries, which I learned as a result of my NTH assignment/paper).