User:Elijah Whalen/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
American bison

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I am fascinated by Bison and their symbolic value to Indigenous cultures. I think it is a good creature for this class.

Evaluate the article
The leading paragraphs are long, but nonetheless informative and full of good information. They serve as a good summary to the topic of American Bison, and include historical, as well as biological information. They're also well sourced, with over 13 citations in just the leading paragraphs alone. The information included in the article covers most of the topics that one would want to know about the topic, with several "sub-articles" (such as Bison hunting) being included to flesh out various sections in their own right.

The article uses a variety of sources, and is written in an unbiased, factual manner, using neutral language that gives an impartial tone. The article also features a plethora of images and videos, which demonstrate different aspects of the American Bison very well. The talk page is mostly just a few users (only one with a signature) raising issues with the article, though not major issues.

Overall, it is a fantastic article, with little to no issues present. The only problem that I would raise is the repetitive use of a few images and videos, but this is more of personal taste than a real problem.

--Elijah Whalen (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

= Great bison belt critiques = Great bison belt

I chose this article because I feel that it can be improved in some places, and I think it fits the theme of the class very well. Bison pelts were well-valued by Indigenous peoples and by European settlers.

Evaluate the article
I think there are a few places where some better wording might prove more beneficial. For example, under the heading "Role of the bison," I'd like to add a time period to the sentence, "Humans had largely destroyed the megafauna of North America," to add more context to it (i.e. "By the turn of the 20th century," or whichever time period would fit best in that example).

"Humans had altered the landscape and ecosystems of the Great Bison Belt for thousands of years" might fit better as "For thousands of years, humans altered the landscape and ecosystems of the Great Bison Belt." I prefer this change because the first statement feels like the follow-up to a previous sentence, rather than the leading sentence of a new heading.

I'd love to know when we think Bison and other important fauna were first theorized to have entered the region. The article mentions that it became ideal for Bison grazing around 10,000, and that Paleo-Indians were known to engage in bison hunting, but it doesn't mention when Bison themselves were thought to have entered the region, perhaps by evidence in the archaeological record. I think the sources should be investigated for other similar temporal ambiguities that could be tweaked slightly.

The last two sentences of "Early history" feel like they could be combined into one sentence for brevity. (eg. "Before human intervention, the Great Bison Belt included much of central North America, and stretched all the way from Southern Mexico to Northern Canada, and from California to Virginia.")

Lastly, I think that the term "Great bison belt" is capitalized randomly. In some cases, "Great bison belt" is used, in others, "Great Bison Belt," and just "great bison belt" in one. It's a small change, but it could add some authenticity to the article. Maybe find how others have referred to it and use that?