User:ALESC20/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.


 * Name of article: Māori science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It seems that there are no other articles on Indigenous academic disciplines or Indigenous fields of study.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does not seem to include a brief description of the article's major sections, although it does contain a navigation box with links to major sections. The lead does include information that is not present in the article, that being a brief mention of funding sources. The lead is concise rather than overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article appears neutral. On the talk page there was an exchange centering around the use of the word "great" to describe contributions by Maori women to the field. However, it appears that citation and supporting information was added to the section to qualify the statement. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. However, there does appear to be underrepresented viewpoints. If the basis for Maori science's incorporation into normative academic space is its initial exclusion, then it might be important to go into further detail about that exclusion since the very idea of Maori science is contingent upon a specific definition of science. In this sense, the article implicitly favors the perspective of Eurocentric science by erasing its elevation to hegemony. Yes, that science is a normative category that other forms ascend to. What is the distinction between Maori Science and Knowledge of the Natural World? And what is lost in that distinction?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The secondary sources vary in reliability. There was a dead link and some of the links redirected to websites, rather than articles. Although these seemed to be government and university websites, I'm still uncertain of the validity of the information cited. Some of the sources are thorough, specifically those relating directly to food. Some of the sources covering social topics redirected to questionable locations. The source for the Colonization and Erasure section piggybacked off of another source instead of citing a dedicated source about that topic. The sources are more or less current. None are more than twenty years old. Yes the sources do represent a diverse spectrum of authors. And yes, some sources seem to be written by Maori authors. All links work but one.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written. But there remains much to be added. Yes there are some grammatical errors. There seem to be some mistakes in the second-to-last sentence of the lead. Some organizations also need to be capitalized. And the style of the sub-headers needs to be standardized.

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
The article does not include any images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are several conversations that center around the distinction between Western science and Maori Science. There are also some arguments about the use of the word "great' to describe contributions by Maori women. The article is rated stub-quality and is a part of WikiProject: Science. Wikipedia does not frame Maori science as a distinct epistemology rooted in relational understandings of, and senses of being derived from, the earth.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is what I would characterize as developing. It carves out a space for Maori science, but that space is greatly underdeveloped. More information would go a long way to improving the article. More historical background on the colonization of the Maori people and the cause of traditional Maori epistemology's erasure would allow for a more unbiased understanding of Maori science in its current iteration.

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: