User:Katiesherwood/Evaluate an Article

Indigenous Peoples of North America articles/ 2020 Canadian Pipeline and Railway Protests
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * 2020 Indigenous Peoples of North America articles
 * I have chosen this article due to its high importance and current events that is ongoing and problematic

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does include a good introductory sentence that appears neutral and clearly describes the articles main topic. Additionally, the article does include brief descriptions of the articles major sections. The article includes relevant information, and while the article is a bit overly detailed, it does fall within a generalized Lead.


 * 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

The article is relevant to the topic and has many supporting details that highlight its importance. The article was last edited in March 2020 and is missing some citations. I believe that the history of the land agreements cold be included and unpacked a bit more. Treaties and land agreements are important. There is no equity gaps in the article however, more could be said to address underrepresented populations in Canada.


 * 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 article is neutral, I have not determined any bias language. More representation could be geared towards understanding land rights and treaties. I think that discussing the impact of the RCMP and Indigenous peoples would be important to include. I also think that more follow up information on the project would better support this article and bring it up to date. Furthermore, expanding on criticism and background information in order to showcase the ongoing problems First Nations have with the pipeline and the rejection of their pleas.


 * 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

While the article has a volume of sources, I'm not sure of the credibility aspect considering many of the sources are linked to wikipedia as a source. The sources come from: the press, journal, articles news and wikipedia. There is some that have been removed and or not a good source because or it was used multiple times on the same page. Therefore. not all of the sources are consider reliable or backed up and some are missing. There is diversity but some are repetitive sources that can not be used and they do not reflect or enhance the credibility of the article. Some links have bee found not to work (reference 79).


 * 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

I find the article Clear and easy to read. Sections have been broken down. The article is a bit dense and could use more generalization on some of the article. Overall, the article seems to flow. Grammar and errors on the article seem to be proficient.


 * 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

The article does contain a few images that enhance the perception of it. Images have good captioning and appear to follow wiki guidelines. Images have a good appeal to them however, the one on solidarity could be more appealing.


 * 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

As of March 26, 2020 COVID19 was named as an indicator of the lack of coverage and ongoing political discourse that is happening in regards to Canadian Pipeline. The talk page discusses the high importance of the article and highlights the need to be neutral when discussing the article. The article is of interest to wiki projects. The article shows that it was assigned someone to peer-review it. I think that it differs in the sense that points out expectations through warning banners and understanding the severity in close-paraphrasing. The need to understand the different types of plagiarism if if you think that you have not done it. That this is type of plagiarism is important to understand.


 * 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

Overall, the article has some good content and it frames important work that involves First Nations, treaties, and land rights here in Canada. The article has an array of viewpoints that allow for it to be a good start. More needs to be done by way of verifying sources and checking broken links, highlighting the importance of the treaties, RCMP and Land rights. Background and criticism could use more improvement. I believe the article is well-developed; it could use a bit more content and sources need to be more constant or crediable.


 * 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: