User:AmadineB/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.


 * R v Marshall: (R v Marshall)
 * This article depicts a well-known Canadian legal case on Indigenous rights

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 has an introductory sentence indicating the article's topic, a legal case on a treaty right. There is a table of contents indicating the sections, but they are not described in the Lead. The Lead only includes information present in the article. The Lead is concise and contains few details.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is very brief. Although it includes some commentary from 2010, it does not seem to get into much of the case. There is no description of the facts of the case and the article seems to exclusively focus on the court's decision without providing many details around it. There seems to be more detail around some of the commentators than around the details of the case. The case addresses topics related to Indigenous people who are historically underrepresented in Canada.

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 more focused towards non-Indigenous critiques and with not enough attention to the details of the case and Indigenous responses. The article does not try to persuade the reader for any particular position.

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 details of the decisions themselves do not have in-line citations, but the commentary does. The sources are not completely thorough. There are other sources that may be relevant and provide more detail that are not included. The sources are current up to 2010, and perhaps sources from more recently are also relevant, or there may be more important information within the sources that is not included. The sources do not appear to include Indigenous perspectives. The one link works, and the rest of the sources reference books.

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
Article is not particularly clear and easy to read, although it is somewhat concise. Because there is little focus on the details of the case, it is hard to focus on the case itself. The article is grammatically correct. There could be more information in the article, allowing it to have more sections, such as adding a background details section.

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
There is one image that appears appropriate to the topic of fishing that clearly indicates what it is about. The photo adheres to copyright regulations and is laid out in a reasonable way.

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
The Talk page suggests that the article may be separated with additional information. There is also discussion of bias towards a particular perspective, which it is claimed has been reduced. It is part of the WikiProjects on Canada/Law, Indigenous peoples of North America, and Law. It is rated as a stub-class and low-importance in all of these projects. We have not specifically discussed the topic in class, although it was alluded to in lecture as an important case. Where I have seen it before in previous classes, it was treated more fairly and there was more information on the details of the case.

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 could have more information. It seems to have the status of an ordinary article, but it seems to be lacking in detail.

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: