User:Bej23/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Food Sovereignty ( Link)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article provides a strong foundational understanding of food sovereignty, and is clearly relevant to the topic. The overarching definition that guides the rest of the article is:"“Food sovereignty is a food system in which the people who produce, distribute, and consume food also control the mechanisms and policies of food production and distribution. This stands in contrast to the present corporate food regime, in which corporations and market institutions control the global food system. Food sovereignty emphasizes local food economies, sustainable food availability, and centers culturally appropriate foods and practices.”"The article goes on to provide other definitions of food sovereignty from a local and global perspective, building context for the term and movement. It describes the history, beginning with the formalization of the term in 1996 by Via Campesina, and its incremental integration into global forums and policies. The article specifically mentions Indigenous food sovereignty, which seems to tackle one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps of providing coverage for a historically marginalized and dispossessed population group. The section on Indigenous food sovereignty outlines the role of colonialism on Indigenous tribes in the United States specifically, and how the accumulation of burdens over time have led to disparate health outcomes as well as Indigenous led activism and research. The article provides a diverse set of case studies, poses the distinction between food sovereignty and food security, and closes with a series of criticisms against the movement, indicating that the article was written with relative neutrality, providing multiple perspectives and arguments. For example:"“Some scholars argue that the Food Sovereignty movement follows wrong baseline assumptions, citing that small-scale farming is not necessarily a freely chosen lifestyle and farmers in least developed and highly developed countries do not face the same challenges. These critics claim the Food Sovereignty movement may be right about the mistakes of neoliberal economic ideology, but it is silent about the fact that many famines actually occurred under socialist and communist regimes that pursued the goal of food self-sufficiency.”"The article is also cited consistently throughout, with each claim given a link to an external reference, endnote citation, or specific note requesting that a reference be added, indicating that ongoing review is taking place. The 61 citations included in the article also appear to be reliable, coming from peer-reviewed journals, published books, or primary resources (i.e. Declaration of Nyeleni archives from the Forum for Food Sovereignty).  Finally, the article’s talk page seems to be pretty robust, with other editors furthering the distinction between food security v. food sovereignty, providing a critical lens on the economic, political, and racialized structures that impact food sovereignty, and mentioning where there needs to be a better source or fact-checking.


 * Sources

Kimmerer, R.W. (2015). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Milkweed Editions.

Jonasson M.E. et al. (2019). “Oil pipelines and food sovereignty: Threat to health equity for Indigenous communities.” Journal of Public Health Policy 40, 504-517. Doi: 10.1057/s41271-019-00186-1

Loker A. & Francis C. (2020). “Urban food sovereignty: Urgent need for agroecology and systems thinking in a post COVID-19 future.” Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 44(9), 1118-1123. Doi: 10.1080/21683565.2020.1775752

Option 2

 * Article title: GIS and Environmental Governance (Link)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article provides an overview and evaluation of geographic information systems (GIS), and how it has since become a tool for citizen science and environmental justice. The flow and bulk of the content was not necessarily what I was anticipating and at times difficult to follow. As the article continues, there is additional discussion on post-political agendas that feels a bit removed, so I’m curious why it was incorporated. Overall, the content sometimes felt off-topic (based on my assumptions and interpretations), but it was interesting, especially as we consider knowledge production as a justice-based process. I do wish there was an initial definition of environmental governance at the introduction, so that a shared understanding of both GIS and environmental governance could be carried throughout the article. The article appears neutral in the sense that throughout the sections, there are indications of different perspectives; however, it seems to lean in the point of view that GIS is a powerful tool that can be leveraged for social and environmental change:"“GIS and citizen science go hand-in-hand. Web-based mapping platforms serve as useful tools for national conservation societies, local community groups, and planning departments to compile tangible data on environmental issues. Voluntary, grassroots approaches can help compile lay knowledges that feed back into more formal political frameworks.”"The article has the potential to tackle a Wikipedia equity gap, but does not seem to go beyond the claim that GIS promotes participatory and procedural justice by increasing the ways everyday citizens can interact with and create data. There could be greater information shared on how data, data creation, and data management interact with race, socioeconomic status, history, etc.   Not all claims have a citation. Most of the more “objective” statements include an external reference, but there is some language throughout that appears to reflect more of an opinionated stance, and is not given a citation. What citations are included seems reliable, with 21 overall sources coming from reputable news or magazines, peer-reviewed journals, or specific, relevant, and notable organization documents. Finally, there is no discussion available on the Talk page.
 * **Note: I am working on the week five module ("make a small edit") but am having trouble finding a sandbox draft. For now, I would like to include the following two sentences based on my additional source (Pateman et. al 2021) to the article on GIS and Environmental Governance as a way to practice making edits:
 * In the Pateman et. al 2021 article, "The Diversity of Participants in Environmental Citizen Science," the authors found that citizen science was most likely to be generated by white, male-identifying, individuals who had higher education levels and were more likely to be employed. Considering who produces knowledge, data, and science outside of "recognized institutions" or professions can help pose reflections around whether that knowledge, data, and science is representative of the communities, spaces, and / or work it aims to advance.
 * Sources
 * In the Pateman et. al 2021 article, "The Diversity of Participants in Environmental Citizen Science," the authors found that citizen science was most likely to be generated by white, male-identifying, individuals who had higher education levels and were more likely to be employed. Considering who produces knowledge, data, and science outside of "recognized institutions" or professions can help pose reflections around whether that knowledge, data, and science is representative of the communities, spaces, and / or work it aims to advance.
 * Sources
 * Sources

Pateman R.M. et al. (2021). “The diversity of participants in environmental citizen science.” Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. Doi: 10.5334/cstp.396

Kimura A.H & Kinchy A. (2019). Science by the People: Participation, Power, and the Politics of Environmental Knowledge. Rutgers University Press.

Davis L.F. & Ramirez-Andreotta M.D. (2021). “Participatory research for environmental justice: A critical interpretive synthesis.” Environmental Health Perspectives 129(2). Doi: 10.1289/EHP6274

Option 3

 * Article title: Environmental Gentrification (Link)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is grounded in the understanding of environmental gentrification to be:"“A process in which cleaning up pollution or providing green amenities increases local property values and attracts wealthier residents to a previously polluted or disenfranchised neighborhood…if [green amenities] are accompanied by gentrification, initiatives can have an ambiguous social impact.”"It describes the basis and history of gentrification, particularly in the United States, and proceeds to describe its relationship with urban planning, sustainability, environmental justice, regulatory practices, and urban greening, highlighting three case studies from Barcelona, New York City, and Vancouver, which provides some more spatial context in how environmental gentrification can manifest. Overall, the content is relevant to the titled topic. I would argue that the article could go further in tackling Wikipedia’s equity gaps, by being more explicit and/or critical in how it incorporates the dynamics between environmental gentrification and the intersections of race, gender, income, citizenship, place of residence, age, etc. The article does mention concepts like environmental justice, but seems to center those who are doing the displacing more than those who are being displaced:"“Typically these neighborhoods are overtaken by a greater white population, resulting in the whitewashing of a neighborhood. As neighborhoods gain more of a white population, there are increased instances of citizen-based policing of youth, such as not only profiling, but also the baseless calling of law enforcement, disproportionately targeting people of color.”"While the above example has validity, I feel that the narrative is white-centric, when there could be an opportunity to balance both holding accountability and community-led solutions or care.  Overall, this article provides neutrality in the sense that broad topics are described objectively, but it’s clear that the reader leaves with a sense that environmental gentrification is bad (which, rightfully so). There could be more included about how communities are resisting-in-place, or case studies that don’t just focus on more developed countries.   Most claims have an external link or endnote citation, but there are some concluding claims that emphasize the author(s) intent to share that environmental gentrification needs to be avoided, and no citations are included. From the 43 included citations, a majority come from peer-reviewed journals that also represent a variety of fields ranging from urban planning, economics, geography, ecology, and public health. Finally, there are no contributions to the Talk page yet.
 * This article is grounded in the understanding of environmental gentrification to be:"“A process in which cleaning up pollution or providing green amenities increases local property values and attracts wealthier residents to a previously polluted or disenfranchised neighborhood…if [green amenities] are accompanied by gentrification, initiatives can have an ambiguous social impact.”"It describes the basis and history of gentrification, particularly in the United States, and proceeds to describe its relationship with urban planning, sustainability, environmental justice, regulatory practices, and urban greening, highlighting three case studies from Barcelona, New York City, and Vancouver, which provides some more spatial context in how environmental gentrification can manifest. Overall, the content is relevant to the titled topic. I would argue that the article could go further in tackling Wikipedia’s equity gaps, by being more explicit and/or critical in how it incorporates the dynamics between environmental gentrification and the intersections of race, gender, income, citizenship, place of residence, age, etc. The article does mention concepts like environmental justice, but seems to center those who are doing the displacing more than those who are being displaced:"“Typically these neighborhoods are overtaken by a greater white population, resulting in the whitewashing of a neighborhood. As neighborhoods gain more of a white population, there are increased instances of citizen-based policing of youth, such as not only profiling, but also the baseless calling of law enforcement, disproportionately targeting people of color.”"While the above example has validity, I feel that the narrative is white-centric, when there could be an opportunity to balance both holding accountability and community-led solutions or care.  Overall, this article provides neutrality in the sense that broad topics are described objectively, but it’s clear that the reader leaves with a sense that environmental gentrification is bad (which, rightfully so). There could be more included about how communities are resisting-in-place, or case studies that don’t just focus on more developed countries.   Most claims have an external link or endnote citation, but there are some concluding claims that emphasize the author(s) intent to share that environmental gentrification needs to be avoided, and no citations are included. From the 43 included citations, a majority come from peer-reviewed journals that also represent a variety of fields ranging from urban planning, economics, geography, ecology, and public health. Finally, there are no contributions to the Talk page yet.


 * Sources

Krings A. & Schusler T.M. (2020). “Equity in sustainable development: Community responses to environmental gentrification.” International Journal of Social Welfare 29(4), 321-334. Doi: 10.1111/ijsw.12425

Smith G.S. & Thorpe R.J. (2020). “Gentrification: A priority for environmental justice and health equity research.” Ethnicity and Disease 30(3): 509-512. Doi: 10.18865/ed.30.3.509

Quinton J. et al. (2022). “How well do we know green gentrification? A systematic review of the methods.” Progress in Human Geography 46(4), 960-987. Doi: 10.1177/03091325221104478

Option 4

 * Article title: Indigenous Land Rights (Link)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is grounded in the understanding of Indigenous land rights to be:"“The rights of Indigenous peoples to land and natural resources therein…mostly in colonized countries. Land and resource-related rights are of fundamental importance to Indigenous peoples for a range of reasons, including: the religious significance of the land, self-determination, identity, and economic factors.”"This definition is then applied to various international law examples, common law examples, and civil law examples at a global scale, providing very brief overviews of the history, politics, and governing structures surrounding Indigenous land rights. Overall, the content is relevant to the topic. The content itself seems to be written rather neutrally (primarily definitions, legal text, or historical events); however, not all claims have a citation, and the citations listed might not represent references that could be validated.  Generally, this article tackles an equity gap by covering a topic that has not usually been covered, and centering Indigenous population groups across the world. However, the article itself is quite brief and it’s not always clear what sources are being referenced. The top of the article also includes a notice saying that “the article has multiple issues” and requesting other editors to discuss on the Talk page to address the lack of citations and representation of multiple perspectives. There is some conversation on the Talk page, but most comments are opinion-based.
 * This article is grounded in the understanding of Indigenous land rights to be:"“The rights of Indigenous peoples to land and natural resources therein…mostly in colonized countries. Land and resource-related rights are of fundamental importance to Indigenous peoples for a range of reasons, including: the religious significance of the land, self-determination, identity, and economic factors.”"This definition is then applied to various international law examples, common law examples, and civil law examples at a global scale, providing very brief overviews of the history, politics, and governing structures surrounding Indigenous land rights. Overall, the content is relevant to the topic. The content itself seems to be written rather neutrally (primarily definitions, legal text, or historical events); however, not all claims have a citation, and the citations listed might not represent references that could be validated.  Generally, this article tackles an equity gap by covering a topic that has not usually been covered, and centering Indigenous population groups across the world. However, the article itself is quite brief and it’s not always clear what sources are being referenced. The top of the article also includes a notice saying that “the article has multiple issues” and requesting other editors to discuss on the Talk page to address the lack of citations and representation of multiple perspectives. There is some conversation on the Talk page, but most comments are opinion-based.


 * Sources
 * Sangha K.K. et al. (2019). “Recognizing the role of local and Indigenous communities in managing natural resources for the greater public benefit: Case studies from Asia and Oceania region.” Ecosystem Services, 39. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100991 Dominguez L. & Luoma C. (2020). “Decolonizing conservation policy: How colonial land and conservation ideologies persist and perpetuate Indigenous injustices at the expense of the environment.” Land 9(3). Doi: 10.3390/land9030065

Option 5

 * Article title: Restoration Ecology (Link)
 * Article Evaluation
 * This is a pretty comprehensive article discussing the definitions, histories, applications, and challenges of restoration ecology from a local and global perspective. The author(s) define restoration ecology at the beginning as:"“The scientific study supports the practice of ecological restoration, which is the practice of renewing and restoring degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and habitats in the environment by active human interruption and action.”"The article provides multiple definitions of ecological restoration and restoration ecology from different sources, describes the history of restoration ecology through US and Australian case studies, emphasizes Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology practice (perhaps the most direct way this article tackles one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps is by including and centering Traditional Ecological Knowledge as part of this practice and school of thought), provides academic and practical theories and concepts to further describe the components of restoration ecology, offers examples of what restoration ecology looks like in real time, provides justification for why this might be a helpful practice, but balances these benefits with existing limitations and criticisms. The article ends with a description of similar frameworks that help provide a better understanding of what restoration ecology is and is not, as well as what next steps are being taken at national and international levels to advance this practice. Overall, it is quite thorough and clearly relevant to the titled topic. Its provision of multiple understandings, definitions, and perspectives also makes it a neutrally written article.  Most, if not all claims, are linked to an external reference or endnote. In total, 114 references were used, with most coming from peer-reviewed journals and others from national or international official documents. The Talk page mostly includes conversations around the structure of the article (ex: modifying external links, merging) but there is a critique posted about the article as well, with thoughtful questions about how to improve the current content.
 * This is a pretty comprehensive article discussing the definitions, histories, applications, and challenges of restoration ecology from a local and global perspective. The author(s) define restoration ecology at the beginning as:"“The scientific study supports the practice of ecological restoration, which is the practice of renewing and restoring degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems and habitats in the environment by active human interruption and action.”"The article provides multiple definitions of ecological restoration and restoration ecology from different sources, describes the history of restoration ecology through US and Australian case studies, emphasizes Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology practice (perhaps the most direct way this article tackles one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps is by including and centering Traditional Ecological Knowledge as part of this practice and school of thought), provides academic and practical theories and concepts to further describe the components of restoration ecology, offers examples of what restoration ecology looks like in real time, provides justification for why this might be a helpful practice, but balances these benefits with existing limitations and criticisms. The article ends with a description of similar frameworks that help provide a better understanding of what restoration ecology is and is not, as well as what next steps are being taken at national and international levels to advance this practice. Overall, it is quite thorough and clearly relevant to the titled topic. Its provision of multiple understandings, definitions, and perspectives also makes it a neutrally written article.  Most, if not all claims, are linked to an external reference or endnote. In total, 114 references were used, with most coming from peer-reviewed journals and others from national or international official documents. The Talk page mostly includes conversations around the structure of the article (ex: modifying external links, merging) but there is a critique posted about the article as well, with thoughtful questions about how to improve the current content.


 * Sources
 * Zidny R. et al. (2020). “A multi-perspective reflection on how Indigenous knowledge and related ideas can improve science education for sustainability.” Science & Education 29, 145-185. Doi: 10.1007/s11191-019-00100-x Robinson J.M. (2021). “Traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology: A call to listen deeply, to engage with, and respect Indigenous voices.” Restoration Ecology 29(4). Doi: 10.111/rec.13381