User:Fall202222/Indigenous Data Governance/Bluebeey Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Fall202222


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Indigenous Data Governance


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The sentence "Indigenous data governance requires the data to surround Indigenous peoples" is unclear. I'm not sure what surround Indigenous peoples means. Do you mean data that relates to Indigenous people?

Overall, I think the section adequately introduces and summarises the topic.

Overview

In regards to the phrase "relevant data", is there some type of data that is "irrelevant"? Perhaps the data that Indigenous peoples have access to is outdated, biased, or inaccurate, then that would count as irrelevant. In that case, I think the sentence could be expanded a little. For example, something like: Oftentimes, Indigenous peoples do not have access to relevant Indigenous data, and data that they can access can be inaccurate and outdated. I'm just speculating here, but if your sources mention something like that, I think it might be worthwhile to include a sentence like that to add more information for the readers.

The phrasing "strong data governance" might be confusing to someone who is reading about data governance for the first time. What makes data governance strong (or weak)? Or is there some other phrasing that is more appropriate?

Indigenous Data Sovereignty

"Data sovereignty holds significance for Indigenous peoplesas marginalized groups of people, because it allows them to protect their land, cultural heritage and knowledge". I would cut out the comma in brackets.

"UNDRIP was formed". I think another term like "adopted" might be more appropriate, as that's the phrasing that tends to get used for UN declarations.

The CARE Principles

I would recommend taking out the phrase "more recently", just to keep the article timeless. In a few years, the CARE Principles won't be recent, requiring that part to be removed.

"Have been created" could be condense to "was created".

I think you could link the 'FAIR data" article and "Open Data" here instead of the "See Also" section.

See Also

There are a few articles here which were already linked in the main article, so I'm not sure it's necessary to link them here, but that's more of a nitpick.

Final Thoughts

Your article provides a good overview of Indigenous data governance, and I think that the tone and content is as neutral as it gets for a topic like this. Your sources are recent, reliable and accessible, and you cited the specific pages of the textbook you used which would be useful for people looking at the sources. Although, I think you could add one or two more scholarly sources if possible. At a glance, it looks like most of your scholarly sources come from Kitchin and Carroll. This could make it look like your article only represents the viewpoint of a few scholars.

Some phrases could be adjusted, and I think you could also provide more examples if possible. Are there any grassroots organisations that are doing work on to Indigenous data governance? Any news or projects from specific countries or Indigenous nations? Or are there any notable names or scholars in the field?

Overall, I think it's a good article, and you did a great job!