User:Jcichoke/Evaluate an Article

Rough Evaluation of Clayoquot Protests Article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Clayoquot protests
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate- I am from the Pacific Northwest (Oregon), and thought it would be interesting to take a look at an issue of both environmental and indigenous importance from the region. I had never heard of this protest before looking through the C-grade articles, but after researching it further I believe it has great significance for the intersection of government, environmentalism, profit, and indigenous rights.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Yes, for the most part the Lead is concise and descriptive. Unfortunately it leaves out mentions of the Clayoquot People, as does much of the article. For example, these are the two closing sentences in the introductory paragraph: "The logging protests and blockades received worldwide mass media attention, creating national support for the environmental movement in British Columbia and fostering strong advocacy for anti-logging campaigns. Media focused on the mass arrests of people engaging in peaceful protests and blockades, aggression and intimidation from law enforcement, which served to strengthen public support for nonviolent protests." Any mention of the Clayoquot people and First Nations are left out of this portion, and much of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it does not. It is a pretty short, straightforward background section as well as short, straightforward article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes it is. However, it does a lot to skim over the effects of the protests on the Clayoquot people and land.
 * Is the content up-to-date? While the protests concluded in 1993, there is one portion where perhaps the content is not up-to-date. The article mentions that the protests were the largest acts of civil disobedience in Canada as of 2017. In addition, the last update under "Aftermath" is from 2013, giving 7 years of developments in the area and industry.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? While there is not content that does not belong, there are a lot of portions where things are just skimmed over, especially when dealing with the Clayoquot people. For example, the background section includes this: "The timber resources of Clayoquot Sound attracted growing numbers of foreigners, limiting access of indigenous peoples to land and creating increasing displeasure among the local population." There is no further discussion of the effects of logging on the Clayoquot people other than this mention. It appears like it doesn't fully tell the story of the process, and of the effects.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It addresses the land claims of Indigenous people, but it could be improved in being more historically representative of the people's actual experience.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? -In a way. It discusses the protests mostly through the lens of environmentalism however. Also, it doesn't root for either the logging or environmental/indigenous interests to prevail, making it fairly neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not heavily.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Tribal voices are underrepresented. The Tribe wasn't fully against logging, they just wanted more responsible management. This idea isn't developed in the article.
 * 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?
 * 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


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, overall the clarity and easiness to read are pretty good. It is more the substance that is the problem.
 * 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? The article could use more specific headings, as there are simply Background, Aftermath, and Blockades and Protests. The article could further dive into land claims, displacement, and negotiation by adding whole new paragraphs.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It has two medium quality photographs, and a picture of a map. The images portion of the article could definitely be improved as there exist much more quality images from the protests.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not really. They don't provide enough information as to the subject of the photo.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? They are all aligned to the right fairly uniformly, it could be improved visually.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Very little occurring in the talk page. One edit simply refined links, and another was a nostalgic personal recount of the protests.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of the WikiProject on Indigenous Peoples of North America, Environment, and Canada/British Columbia. It is currently rated as low-importance however.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is interesting because in class we heavily value recognizing the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples when they displaced or affected by outside factors, but this article seems to discuss these effects in a passive manner.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a C-Class Indigenous Peoples of North America article. The overall quality is mediocre, as the structure is fine but most of the substance could use some fine tuning.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a solid structure and easy to follow succession of events. It could simply be expanded in some areas.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be majorly improved by focusing on the role of the Clayoquot people both before settlers arrived, and with the impact of the protest. In the places where First Nations peoples are only briefly mentioned, such as when talking about displacement or negotiations over logging processes, more information should be included.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is moderately developed and could use some additional substance. It currently has a good baseline of information, but could be supplemented.

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: