User:Caquaile/sandbox

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: (link) Native Hawaiians
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to write about indigenous Hawaiians after learning about their struggle while doing prison abolitionment work. This has lead ot me to learn more about their protests against colonialism and their much broader struggle for representation and platforming. Overall I want to show the history of the currently occupied islands of Hawai'i which may be one of the most blatant examples of late American imperialism as well as one of the most effective erasures and public relations campaigns in US history.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The first sentence to the article clearly identifies that Indigenous Hawai'ians are aboriginal to that place and have a log history that traces back to the very earliest onset of the Polynesian landing on the island of Hawai'i. This does a great job of framing the existence of Indigenous people as having a larger macro-identity within the Polynesian culture as well as showing the historic, indisputable land claims to the islands of Hawai'i.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not give any description of any of the sections nor does it really delve into any real overview of Hawai'ian history outside of discussing the diaspora population figures and the number of Native Hawai'ians who currently reside on the islands. This glaring lack of details makes the articel far less welcoming to readers and subtly impritns that the only meaningful knowledge is the number of people who hold that current identity,
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead has only information presented in the article as the lead contains only two demographic facts which are mentioned later in the article under the demographics portion of the page.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is skimpy and falls far below concise. The total lack of information is not just a revision of wordiness but a complete lack of any real foresight and pre-emptive interest goals. The lead is not well written in regards to inviting further reading, and certainly gives nothing of interest that provokes a deeper questioning or thought process.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant albeit lacking in certain places. The author draws out long bits of information like the style of education of Native Hawai'ians yet links to four separate history pieces of the island of Hawai'i as the articles attempt to include history. There is also no mention of the dispossession of land by the Dole Pineapple industry and the McKinley government. Furthermore, protests regarding the NASA telescope and the incarceration of Native Hawai'ians is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date but does not have a content section for anti-colonial struggle and protests so it is missing recent developments in the telescope placement as well as missing insight into the separatist movement that has defined parts of Native Hawai'ian activism.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that doesn't belong but there is a complete lack of summarized history in relation to indigenous people that makes the article lacking in terms of depth and importance of knowledge. The article also has very little discussion about land degradation and the over-tourism that has severely hurt the regions biodiversity. Furthermore the article fails to mention the large scale agri-buisness that has come to displace many indigenous farmers. Finally there is no mention of the monarch in any capacity. The article mainly reads as an indigenous addendum to the history of the settler-colonial occupied islands of Hawai'i.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does cover a historically dispossessed and erased people but the effectiveness of the coverage and the overall strength of the article leaves much to be desired. Some of the topics covered are historically misunderstood or seldom discussed but ultimately the article is just lacking in description, breadth, and depth. The article also leaves out the two major problems facing indigenous Hawai'ians which are generational poverty and mass incarceration.

Content evaluation
The content is overall lacking and leaves large holes. The effectiveness of introducing Native Hawai'ians and giving a complete history and understanding is not just poor but actually continues the erasure of the Hawai'ian people be way using state sanctioned talking points to discuss indigenous existence. Overall the article contributes to the revisionist history that it is trying to fight against.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * This article is not neutral and seems to favor highlighting the recent good over the historical trauma and theft that Native Hawai'ians have endured. This makes the article read like all problems are over and the biggest problems that Native Hawai'ians face are behind them.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no bold claims but their is the general feeling that the article chooses to quickly gloss over anything that may be considered a historical injustice to move into seemingly mundane and niche knowledge. The expansiveness of this means that very little discussion of the Native Hawai'ian struggle.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The viewpoint of the Hawai'ian government is far over represented and the "amazing goodwill" of the government dominate most of the space on the page. This leaves very little room for the perspective of actual indigenous perspectives and voices as well as any discussion on indigenous religious practice, broader culture, and accurate histories.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * While not directly this article does seem to point towards a pro-future vision in which the State of Hawai'i continues its slow march towards progress until all indigenous people on the island have equal rights. By leaving out any major historical points the author clearly sets us up to Native Hawai'ians as being better off than what many people woul dexpect. There si also little mention of the military industrial complex on the island, or the mass migration of both US nationals and people from East Asia

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * THe article is very extensively sited and has a variety of both academic and indigenous voices on the issues presented. It should be noted that there is still a revisionist edge to this article and that a diverse array of sources cannot speak on issues not included or presented in the Wikipedia article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are quite thorough as they have a variety of mediums and dates and styles. 2014 does seem to be the most recent date of any major body of work cited, so the contemporary aspect of the article can certainly be questioned at large. The decolonization movement has also gained a lot of steam since 2014 which has shifted the radical aspect of organing and activism on the island.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources range from 1971-2019 with the major bodies of work falling in the 1990-2005 range.These are current whilst not being contemporary but the time frame makes sense given that much interest over Hawai'ian politics was centered around the Bill Clinton apology and the bi-national court and congress around 2005.
 * 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?
 * The links work for all the sources which is great given the normal ratio of Wiki link success.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well written for the parts that are covered but in a holistically the articles erasure of major issues is a severe detriment to its objectibility as well as the standard of writing we should expect in regards to the coverage of historically/currently traumatized and occupied people/land
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No this article has no obvious grammar or spelling mistakes.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The articles organization is strange to say the very least, with the order making very little sense in regards to importance and relevance.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. The first picture is a brownish still from the 1920s of two children which does very little to actually describe the culture or people givent hat there attire has no relationship to Hawai'i in any way. The image for culture is also incredibly dated, making it seem like Native Hawai'ians are non-contemporary and have little impact on modern society.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No. They use basic descriptors of identifying the gender and status of the person while giving no contextual details or historical reference point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, all images follow the copyright regulations of Wikipedia
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No. One is at the very top which is standard so that could be deemed okay, but the other is small and at the bottom of the page, which makes it very hard to see and in a place that many people will not get to,

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The debate behind the scenes seems to be centered around the inclusion of territorial occupation and the coup. Several sides go on to make points about its inclusion and exclusion as well as to include viewpoints about whether or not the was in fact a coup. The other discussion seemed to a be a few fact checking blurbs and a few others questioning the legitimacy of the sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated Class-B Top rated and is part of the Polynesian, Native Hawai'ian, Ethnically underrepresented projects for Wikipedia
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article differs in the fact that it does not cover any land acknowledgement outside of the brief sentence at the beginning nor does it dig into the US colonial and imperial status on the island. Overall the article is incredibly reductionist and fails to truly push beyond the state's official jargon and talking points.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I would asses the status as incomplete and in need of serious additions and edits.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles strength is the discussion of education and language which take up the most space in the article.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to discuss dispossession, the US led coup, the Dole pineapple corporation, the military and prison industrial complexes, and it need to discuss anti-colonial indigenous activism. The article also needs to highlight the anti-telescope protests as well as Hawai'ian religious traditions and beliefs.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Under and poorly developed.

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: Talk:Native Hawaiians