User:Don'tTakeYourselfTooSeriously/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.


 * Name of article: (link)Leif Erikson
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I am enrolled in an Anthropology class about the human rights of Indigenous Peoples and this article stood out to me in how Leif Erikson's interaction with the natives was described.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Leif Erikson, Leiv Eiriksson or Leif Ericson ( c.  970 – c. 1020) was a Norse explorer from Iceland. He is thought to have been the first known European to have set foot on continental North America (excluding Greenland), approximately half a millennium before Christopher Columbus.According to the sagas of Icelanders, he established a Norse settlement at Vinland, which is usually interpreted as being coastal North America. There is ongoing speculation that the settlement made by Leif and his crew corresponds to the remains of a Norse settlement found in Newfoundland, Canada, called L'Anse aux Meadows and which was occupied c. 1000. Later archaeological evidence suggests that Vinland may have been the areas around the Gulf of St. Lawrence and that the L'Anse aux Meadows site was a ship repair station.

Leif was the son of Erik the Red, the founder of the first Norse settlement in Greenland and of Thjodhild (Þjóðhildur), both of Norwegian origin. His place of birth is not known, but he is assumed to have been born in Iceland, which had recently been colonized by Norsemen mainly from Norway. He grew up in the family estate Brattahlíð in the Eastern Settlement in Greenland. Leif had two known sons: Thorgils, born to noblewoman Thorgunna in the Hebrides; and Thorkell, who succeeded him as chieftain of the Greenland settlement.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the article does not accurately describe the interaction Erikson had with the indigenous people, other than saying that he "preached Christianity to the Greenlanders". This sentence is problematic for many reasons, one being that Greenland didn't yet exist so it is not historically not ethnically correct to refer to the indigenous people as "Greenlanders". The article is also missing information about the forced conversion, mass killings, or kidnappings that the natives were victim to on account of Erikson and his Vikings.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes it deals with equity gaps related to the historically underrepresented population of Native Americans. There is no mention about the cruel discrimination that they faced when the Vikings arrived on their land, nor is there much mention about how they are the true inhabitants of what is present day Greenland. The article tells a white washed, European centric version of Leif Erikson where he "discovered" the "New World", thereby excluding the Native American narrative.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? No, the article is not neutral because it depicts Leif Erikson's legacy as heroic without showing villainous side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? By not mentioning his treatment of the Native Americans, the article appears biased toward Leif Erikson's favor.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint from the Native American is underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The article attempts to persuade the reader in favor of Leif Erikson.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is discussion about if Columbus set foot in America and whether Central America is part of North America.
 * How is the article rated? GA-Class Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Our class takes a closer look into the Native American narrative while Wikipedia does little to acknowledge their experience.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Can be improved.
 * What are the article's strengths? Organization and clarity
 * How can the article be improved? Use information from Native American perspective.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed, but still missing key points from a group that was forever affected by Erikson.

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: