User:Fullertonae/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.


 * Māori science: (Māori science)
 * I chose to evaluate this article becuase I am unfamiliar with the topic and find it interesting how other cultures, especially isolated ones such as island cultures, grow and develop belief systems and, in this case, understandings of science.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is an academic discipline between Western science and traditional Maori knowledge, includes translations.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does not describe the sections of "Women in Maori Science" or "Colonization and Erasure" but it does touch on "Impact".
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, it discusses briefly the Maori Renaissance, organisations that provide funding, and how it is taught at the university level.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It could be written to be more concise; remove the parts that are not mentioned later in the article and create separate headings for them, then rewrite the introduction to summarize briefly the main topics with headers.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The oldest citation is from 2011, and the newest from 2019, so it seems up to date, but there is very little content to go off of. There are most likely additions that could be made in recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? If there is the information available, more prominant figures, methods, journals, history of the practice, birth of the practice, theories and/or beliefs, etc. could be added. However, given that Maori did not have a written language until around 1830, perhaps these records no longer exist.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes. It does talk about women, and also is centered around the Maori people, an indigenous group.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? More or less. Even in discussing the Tohunga Supression Act does the author(s) remain neutral. However, in the introduction it states that Maori science is a "decolonization of science" without references or elaboration. In the "Women in Maori Science" section, it is stated that women have made "great contributions" but may do better just by using "contributions".
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Likely yes, however I cannot access one that comes from Maori TV,a nd one from Victoria University of Wellington.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is a citation from a journal from the Royal Society of New Zealand, a TV station, 2 research reports, two website articles, and two course outlines from two universities. Therefore, there are several different types of literature from different types of sources, perhaps there are more case studies and research in Maori medicine or even tourist-centrered information that could be included.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, they are from the years 2011-2019, so within an 8 year period.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are two cited pieces produced by women, and another with women on the team of writers, the others unclear.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?  Maori Television and  Victoria University of Wellington do not work.

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? No pictures.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? More elaboration on the difference between Maori and Western science needed, links do not exist for several parts, no citation found for the "decolonization" remark.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Science stub-class, no rating on importance, WikiProject New Zealand, stub-class and low-importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This stub is very much skeletal and needs more information in many different sections. It needs a review of it's tone, and an update on its citations. It could use some pictures to enhance the page.
 * What are the article's strengths? Concise.
 * How can the article be improved? More information from reputable sourcesm updated citations, tone review, and pictures.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? 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: