User:DivineIrakiza/Indigenous land rights/JustAJar4 Peer Review

General info
DivineIrakiza
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing: right here:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): right here:

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Hey there! Here is my peer review of your article.

Lead
I notice that you have not adjusted the existing lead for the article, but that seems to be alright since that portion of the article is probably the most solid section. It provides a definition and brief breakdown of what Indigenous land rights entail, and mentions some aspects of the article (namely the portion on Aboriginal Australian people and Aboriginal Title). Even though it is definitely a solid lead, I would consider adding key details from some of the other sections you updated in this introduction to balance out what is featured at the beginning. For example, including something about the Treaty of Waitangi and the later Waitangi Tribunal as well as the U.S. court cases detailed (Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832)) as examples of how Aboriginal title is represented throughout the article and in certain countries/national regions. These are strictly from the "Common Law" section, so it is possible to include other examples from the "International Law" and "Civil Law" sections to round out what is included in the lead, but this measure is not entirely necessary. If it makes the lead too long or tampers with the format too much, then it may be alright to leave it as is.

Content
The major edits you have made to the "Canada," "New Zealand," and "United States" sub-sections of the "Common Law" portion of the article already enhance its quality. Those were the parts that were most in need of further elaboration, I feel, and the included specificity helps the article feel much more complete. Included information comes from sources that are relatively recent (historical documents notwithstanding) and are relevant to the topic of Indigenous land rights. That being, I think there are some things you can address and mention in these section to further bolster the information:

I am unsure if you plan to make major edits to the "Australia," "Japan," and "Latin America" sections of this portion since they remain largely untouched, but adding more details about how common law relates to the Ainu in Japan and Aboriginals of Australia could not hurt. As for potential "Latin America" additions, more examples from specific countries will certainly help improve the section, like what you are considering with Ecuador. Adding what we have learned in class about the Saramaka (refer to Rainforest Warriors) and the Sarayaku (refer to the Children of the Jaguar documentary) can help bolster the tangibility of the section. Also, if you do plan on editing this section, you may consider adding more citations for the information already there since the original article only has one citation for this section.
 * Canada - You added much needed context to the origin of Indigenous rights and the keystone cases regarding Aboriginal title (Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997) and Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia (2014)), though it would be helpful to add key dates concerning the former topic (e.g. when did Canada respond with the "White Paper"? The "Red Paper"? What, specifically, are the years for the "period that followed" after these two events?). You might also consider adding more information on Indigenous efforts to preserve their land rights in Canada after this period and that does not necessarily entail the court cases mentioned. This will help paint a fuller picture of how land rights advocacy is an ongoing endeavor and not something wholly resolved yet.
 * New Zealand - Again, the context you have provided to describe the tension between the Crown and the Māori helps the reader understand the underlying issues that were present throughout their relationship. I think a couple of minor additions will help spruce up the section: the date/year that the Treaty of Waitangi was created and a brief sentence introducing the Māori as the main Indigenous group in New Zealand. The latter suggestion may not be necessary, but it was simply something that was not apparent to me. Another minor detail you may consider editing is the one about The New Zealand Wars. The Wikipedia link to this article redirects to a book titled The New Zealand Wars (this article also does not indicate a separate redirection to another article of a similar name describing these conflicts), and the citation provided in that sentence ("Reconciliation, Representation and Indigeneity: 'Biculturalism' in Aotearoa New Zealand" which is hyperlink 6) does not indicate that these string of conflicts were referred to as "The New Zealand Wars." I am not sure if there is a consensus on the official title for these conflicts, so you could adjust that sentence to read something like "Unrest between the Māori and the Crown continued into the 19th and 20th centuries, including a series of wars detailed in a book called The New Zealand Wars" if necessary.
 * The United States - The additions made to this section were very helpful since you added more court cases and elaborated on the one that was already included (Johnson v. McIntosh (1823)). Since you mentioned the end of treaty making policies in 1871, it might be helpful to determine the origin of this policy and explain its relation to the legal ownership that Indigenous peoples had over their lands. Although this is explained somewhat in the second paragraph of the section (in which you break down each case in the "Marshall Trilogy"), it seems to be worthwhile to give this topic a more definitive explanation towards the start of the section so that the information regarding the end of treaty making in 1871 has a proper beginning, as well.

Additionally, it may also be helpful to link to the Wikipedia article about common law at the start of the section and specify that Aboriginal title is the main policy that applies to Indigenous land rights since this is not made entirely clear in the section.

Tone and Balance
I believe that you were able to achieve a good neutral tone throughout all of your additions that do not bias the reader towards one particular viewpoint. There is only one place in which the neutral tone may err otherwise, but these are just my subjective observations based on what some of these words connotate to me. In the "United States" section, you write that the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) case was a "setback" with regards to Indigenous rights, and this to me may connote sympathy towards the Native groups affected. This, however, is a negligible detail and can be regarded as a nitpick since everything else in the article appears to be written in a neutral and balanced manner.

Sources and References
The sources you have included so far seem to be relatively reliable, with the majority of them having been created in the 21st century (aside from around two or three). You also did a good job summarizing relevant information from the sources you have provided, though more details about treaties and treaty making in the United States could have been taken from the "No More Nations Within Nations: Indigenous Sovereignty after the End of Treaty-Making in 1871" source.

With that said, a few of your sources are YouTube videos (1st, 3rd, and 8th+9th hyperlinks), two are book reviews (5th and 6th hyperlinks), and one is a thesis (4th hyperlink). I am hesitant to consider these sources wholly reliable on their own since they can have varying qualities of legitimacy. The 8th+9th hyperlinks appear to be a solid video since it comes from the library of New Zealand, but the first video titled "Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada's Constitution" does not have much of any indication to other sources where they could have retrieved their information (though it appears to come from a reputable safe, it might also be best to find other sources to corroborate this information, especially since this is the only source cited in relation to the creation of Canada's constitution and Treaty Rights), and the other video mentioned titled "The historic Delgamuukw land claims case: 25 years later" comes from a news station, which can include reputable information, but other sources can be found to corroborate what is discussed in the video. While book reviews on their own aren't necessarily bad resources, it would be better if the books being reviewed were cited rather than the reviews themselves. And lastly, theses are much more of a personal opinion of mine, but although they are rife with useful and reputable information regarding the topic they are arguing, they seem to lack the reputability of other scholarly sources. These are a few of the sources that make me wary, but their integration into the article is done very well, and the scholarly sources you have provided are both well integrated and relevant to the topic at hand.

I have found a couple sources that can hopefully help you in further refining your edits:


 * Jérémie Gilbert. (2007). Historical Indigenous Peoples’ Land Claims: A Comparative and International Approach to the Common Law Doctrine on Indigenous Title. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 56(3), 583–611. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4498090 This source gives more background on the formation of common law with regards to Indigenous land rights and explains how it can function as a temporal connector. Of course, the argument the author makes is subjective, but the foundational details may be valuable.
 * Henderson, J. (Sa’ke’j) Y. (2010). CONSTITUTIONAL VISION AND JUDICIAL COMMITMENT: ABORIGINAL AND TREATY RIGHTS IN CANADA. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 14(2), 24–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26423180 This source explains the Canadian constitutions and the complications + conflicts that arose when attempting to properly implement Aboriginal treaty rights. It also gets into how these changes shaped Indigenous social standing in Canada since it provided new implications for their existence. The video source you provided on this matter gives good preliminary information, but this source appears to go more in-depth about the process.
 * Ruru, J., & Kohu-Morris, J. (2020). Maranga Ake Ai’ the heroics of constitutionalising ’Te Tiriti O Waitangi’/The Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand. Federal Law Review, 48(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20955105 This source discusses more of the Māori perspective on the Treaty of Waitangi and how they have been faring since its creation. Including more the Indigenous experience in regard to the treatment they have received since the treaty passed could help make their presence all the more tangible without necessarily persuading the reader to unequivocally sympathize with them.

Organization
I believe that what you have written thus far is conveyed in a very clear and concise manner, which is relatively nice given the amount of information you were able to synthesize and display. There are some minor syntax issues such as awkward punctuation and spacing here and there, but it does not appear in such great quantity that it distracts from the content of the article. I am curious to know why this article in particular discusses only select countries/regions in each section (e.g. Australia only appears in the "Common Law" section while two Latin American countries are included in the "Civil Law" section with the entire region mentioned in "Common Law"), but this is less due to a discrepancy in logic than it is an interest in understanding why the article is divided the way that it is. I haven't seen any major issues here.