User:Aglreads/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
National Historic Preservation Act

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 found this page by searching Academic Disciplines, then Humanities, then Art History, then Conservation & Restoration of Cultural Heritage, then Historic Preservation, then Historical preservation by country, then Historic preservation in the U.S. (full disclosure: I was looking for something we had specifically talked about in class but couldn’t find a library and archive section anywhere, then was trying to find an art archive by going down the art history route and wound up here).

I picked this because I vaguely recalled hearing it before, thought that it was broad and would link to other relevant information, and because it felt like something I should know more about. It matters because it marks the beginning of concentrated preservation efforts in the United States for cultural landmarks. My preliminary impression was that the article would give an overview of the law’s history, as well as its uses.

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 strength of the article is that it takes something complicated (a law) and makes it digestible. However, it can be improved by including photos and other media, as well as usage of the NHPA in legal battles or otherwise, especially in the “Effects” section. I’d also like to see a diversity of voices represented, which seems possible given the wealth of sources available. The article doesn’t misrepresent historically marginalized groups, because it doesn’t seem to represent anyone in particular at all. It does not argue that the NHPA is good or bad, just states plainly when it was made and what it is used for. Overall, I would say it is reasonably well-developed and extremely neutral. I’d rate it a 6.5 out of 10.

LEAD SECTION


 * The introductory sentence is clear & concise but reading the entire first paragraph gives a more holistic picture of the impact of the law. However, the lead section does not include an overview of what to anticipate in the article/the article’s major sections.
 * The last sentence of the intro section indicates that this law impacted other laws, which it refers to only as “54 U.S.C”. If you click on that link, you’ll find that it is referring to laws regarding the National Park Service, which is referenced later in the article. May I suggest clarifying this to state that, in 2014, the NHPA’s provisions from 16 U.S.C. were moved to 54 U.S.C.?
 * The lead section does state that “several amendments have been made since” but nowhere in the article does it clearly state what those amendments were or when they were made. I would suggest clarifying this to include that the NHPA has been amended 4 times – 1976, 1980, 1992, and 2016.

CONTENT


 * The content is relevant, up-to-date, and accurate as far as I can tell. Other sources also reference the Antiquities Act, Mount Vernon, Historic American Buildings Survey, and committee report With Heritage so Rich.
 * Tribal Consultation was never mentioned. As of 2021, Section 106 Review process states that "a federal agency must consult with any Indian tribe that attaches religious and cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by the agency’s undertakings" (handbook here).
 * The quote from the Washington Post article under Early Development could be cut and paraphrased instead. For example, maybe saying that "Before the 1960's, historic preservation wasn't important to most Americans. People weren't thinking about it and no laws existed." or something similar.
 * What I did note was missing were any footnotes or citations for the “Effects” section. I’d like to know where those claims originated from. Additionally, there has been important use of the NHPA (for example during the Dakota Access Pipeline legal battle) that could round out this section.
 * The only direct correlation to representing an oft-overlooked population was with the inclusion of Lady Bird Johnson’s contribution to the committee that published With Heritage so Rich (note that if Wikipedia has specific organizational equity goals and gaps they would like to close, I am not familiar with them). It does appear that she was instrumental.
 * The NHPA was part of the Great Society program, which bears inclusion.

TONE & BALANCE

This article is very neutral, possibly because the topic is very neutral. It was written into law over 50 years ago. This article does not discuss the debates over historic preservation as a whole. In fact, the only viewpoints highlighted are the motivations of those who pushed for the law originally. It does not give voice to the "historic preservation is denying progress and money!" crowd, nor the "there are equity gaps in our current understanding of historic preservation!" crowd. I think adding a section for Interpretation and Use, perhaps after Effects, would allow the revelation of these differing viewpoints without endorsement, as well as creating space for more diverse sources and closing some content gaps.

SOURCES & REFERENCES


 * There are only 2 links, and only one of them (The Washington Post article) works. It did support the Wiki article's claims. The rest are mostly legal texts, case law, or journal entries and inaccessible to me.
 * There are no citations for the “Effects” section.
 * The earliest source lines up with the origin of the law (1966) and the latest is 2017.
 * Sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The majority, as far as I can tell, are white men, although at least two sources were authored by women. Other metrics of diversity are not apparent.
 * There don’t appear to be a shortage of sources available. In fact, the 3 sources that the National Park Service’s website references are not cited for this article.
 * There are arguments that the NHPA does not go far enough. For example, here is an Iowa Law Review article that not only goes into more detail about the 1992 amendment and the inclusion of important Native American cultural sites to the National Register of Historic Places, but also highlights the impact of the NHPA and its interactions with marginalized groups.
 * There are several sources that show modern arguments using the NHPA, such as this one from NPR about the NHPA and the Dakota Access Pipeline.

ORGANIZATION & WRITING QUALITY

There are no glaring errors in the writing quality and the article is well organized into 6 sections, beginning chronologically and ending thematically.

IMAGES & MEDIA

The only image is the Great Seal of the United States, which does nothing to enhance understanding of the topic other than to indicate that it is a federal law and “official”. Other options to include


 * Historic places plaques
 * LBJ signing the bill into law
 * Places that have been preserved using the NPHA
 * The French Quarter in New Orleans (could have ended up a freeway! )
 * African Burial Ground in NYC
 * Independence Hall in Philadelphia (one of the first sites to be added to the National Register of Historic Places after the NHPA created the register – added in 1966 )

TALK PAGE DISCUSSION

Seems like they used to have a generic “history” section and that overall, there were broad claims and info that could be (and perhaps were) moved to a more umbrella page/topic, such as “Historic Preservation in the US”. It is part of several WikiProjects: National Register of Historic Places, Law, Urban studies and planning, Historic sites, and United States. The National Register is the only one of “top importance”. As far as I can tell, there is no rating for this article, as it is not labeled start, stub, featured, or good on the talk page. We haven’t not discussed this topic in class (yet?). The talk page was where I was first able to figure out the correlation between 16 U.S.C and 54 U.S.C as others had flagged the same issue I did.