User:Inglewitch/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: Metis (Métis)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article to determine if it distinguishes the Metis as a distinct sociopolitical post contact Indigenous group, if it positions Metis as mixed.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead for this article contains a concise introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic and is of reasonable quality with the exception of the failure to capitalize the word Indigenous. The balance of the lead is is poorly written and appears to be cobbled together from a number of editors written from different perspectives. Some criticisms of the lead are the inclusion of perspectives that contradict the topic sentence, failure to cite specific assertions, inclusion of information that is not present in the article, and a failure to provide a roadmap to the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Much like the lead, this article appears to be a poorly patched together assembly of topics on Metis political and legal status, history, leadership, and demographics in both Canada and the United States. While the lead indicated the Metis are a distinct sociopolitical post contact Indigenous group, various editors have inserted contradictory information creating space for the argument of Metis as mixed peoples. It appears as though multiple different editors are using the space of this article to adjudicate Metis self identification. The recentness of the information is varied throughout the article, as is the presence and quality of the citations. This is unfortunate as the topic of the article is an equity seeking group who have been historically underrepresented.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The one consistency with this article is its inconsistency and the tone varies with each section, and at times within individual sections. While sections of the article relating to the Metis, whose ethnogenesis is in the Red River Valley, are primarily neutral, small but heavily biased insertions have been made to broaden the scope of who is authentically Metis. Additionally, some sections maintain neutrality while others include impassioned writing.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

This article has a mix of sources including Metis and Indigenous scholarship that is contemporaneous or of the recent past, recent and past census, court cases, news articles, opinion pieces, information from organizations represented by the Metis National Council, and self Indigenizing groups from both Canada and the United States. Many of the links within the article are broken and can not be evaluated.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This article is disjointed, there is a lack of transition or chronology between the sections and some sections contain contradictory information. It is difficult to evaluate the over all article as some sections are clear and easy to follow, while others are disorganized and unfocused. The spelling and grammar is reasonable, however the word Indigenous is not consistently capitalized, and the work Indian is used in contexts (Canadian, but not referring to specific governmental bodies, legislation or legal documents) that are inappropriate and offensive.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are multiple images included within the article including positive ones such as the flag, territorial maps, and historical photographs, and a number of problematic paintings by men of European ancestry.


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

This topic is under the purview of a number of Wikiprojects, from a variety of groups, that have rated it at different levels of importance. The conversation amongst members of the various groups in the talk illuminates why the article is dysfunctional as various editors challenge each others positions on Metis as distinct or Metis as mixed. The talk page digresses into a number of bi or multi racial ethnic identities from around the globe to justify individual positions or support, or lack there of for self identification. Ultimately the talk has become a forum on the topic and some comments go so far as to push the limits of civility. What is missing from both this talk, and the resultant article is a clear Metis voice.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

It is difficult to access this article as a whole. While there are some positive aspects, the disjointedness, inconsistency and lack of an editorial vision make it poor overall.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or 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: