User:Lfz319/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Repatriation and reburial of human remains

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because of its relevancy to my study, biological anthropology. I have worked heavily with human remains and believe repatriation is of top priority within the field. Unfortunately, repatriation is easily misunderstood and difficult to carry out. I am interested in both better understanding the topic for myself and increasing its readability and awareness for others.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

Rating: Stub

Weaknesses: The article provides a vague definition of repatriation. It mentions that repatriation focuses on “ethical issues and cultural sensitivities regarding human remains…” It’s so vague that it fails to educate the audience.

Recommendations:

·      To clear up the issue, the article could provide a more concise definition of repatriation. It can then specify those “ethical issues and cultural sensitivities” by giving a brief review on the arguments from involved parties: native groups, scientists/anthropologists, and policymakers.

·      The author could have better summarized the content of the article. The amount focused on topics within the lead section does not reflect the amount within the actual content section. The author can explain the broad global responses on repatriation, rather than explicitly list the experiences of three specific cases.

Content

Rating: Start

Weaknesses: The article fails to mention the history and laws that have sparked awareness and action for repatriation. Instead, it gives a verbose explanation of historical trauma, followed by specific repatriation case study examples. These examples are very imbalanced. Specifically, some examples are heavily lacking and short. Meanwhile, the Australia and Druids examples are very lengthy. Overall, the article provides vague representations of the issue. In an effort to remain objective, the author appears to have lost vital information.

Recommendations:

History/Laws

·      To reconcile these issues, the author should have a section related to the history and laws surround repatriation. They can address the common issues that prevent repatriation. Additionally, I think it would be helpful to elaborate on the effectiveness of these policies. Specifically, what are the collaborative efforts and process to repatriate remains? Also, how long did this take?

·      The author can elaborate on NAGPRA and related repatriation laws. Specifically, NAGPRA is incredibly significant since many countries don’t have official legislation for repatriation. The author can address the effectiveness and shortcomings of NAGPRA and related laws.

Imbalance

·      The article is verbose in some areas and lacking in others. For example, the Australia section is overabundant in tracking the number, directors, and locations of remains. The author can narrow down which facts are relevant to the article’s purpose for understanding repatriation.

·      Additionally, the author can elaborate on the Northern Cheyenne example. They briefly mention that this is a “good example of a repatriation case” and state that a tribe experienced “healing power” when their massacred ancestors were eventually returned. It would be great to elaborate on how repatriation sowed this healing power. Specifically, what was the repatriation process in this case study? How long did this take? Did anything specifically trigger this action: tribal protests, legal requirements, or media pressure?

·      I would also recommend that the author further explain the issues and debates between the multiple parties involving the Kennewick man. This case study shows the numerous perspectives and complications surrounding repatriation.

Vague

·      As mentioned above, in an effort to remain objective, the author has lost vital information. For example, they say, “some believe it is disrespectful… for their remains to be displayed…” They should be more specific on the populations and beliefs. Who believes that displayed remains are disrespectful? They should elaborate on the specific beliefs and goals of tribes and anthropologists. They may also discuss the divided beliefs in each group.

Tone and Balance

Rating: Stub

Weaknesses: The article fails to elaborate on the views of Indigenous people and scientists/anthropologists. Additionally, their choice of repatriation examples is limited to White and Indigenous people. There are other minorities, such as Black Americans and Africans, who also desire the repatriation of their ancestors.

Also, the article addresses that the exploitation of Indigenous people “stems from a time when race and cultural differences had huge social implications” as if these inequalities were not still present.

Recommendations:

-         The article should elaborate on Indigenous groups’ specific beliefs about spirituality and physical bodies. Awareness of these beliefs will help audiences better understand why certain groups are so passionate and affected by repatriation policy.

-         The author should avoid speaking on repatriation and racism issues as concepts of the past. Inequality is still alive and thriving in this century.

-         To provide an objective and wholistic review of repatriation, the author should address the multiple, contrasting opinions surrounding the choice to repatriate. Specifically, they should minimally address the views of the two most involved groups: native populations and scientists/anthropologists.

-         They may even mention the collaborative efforts between tribes and anthropologists. There are cases where tribes have specific research questions, and they collaborate with anthropologists to find the answers by observing remains.

-         Finally, another user on the talk page addressed the article’s need for more inclusive case studies of repatriation. I agree with the user that this article should include well-known cases, such as the repatriation efforts for Sarah Baartman, Egyptian mummies, and other people within Black and African history. This inclusivity is especially important since many legal efforts for repatriation have been geared toward Indigenous people but overlooked other minorities.

Sources and References

Rating: Stub

Weaknesses: The article is heavily lacking in peer-reviewed literature. It predominantly references very short news articles pertaining to specific repatriation cases. Additionally, a few references have listed incorrect authors.

Recommendations:

·      The author may benefit from referencing more scientific sources to strengthen the article.

·      They may also double-check the details of the references.

Organization and Writing

Rating: Start

Weaknesses: The author has numerous run-on sentences. I use this term to reference the author’s overuse of numerous commas and conjunctions throughout one sentence. Though the author uses punctuation, there are so many clauses that the sentences are difficult to follow. This deters readers from continuing the article.

Additionally, the author could better organize the article’s categories and sections.

They also utilize lengthy quotes within the Druid section.

Recommendations:

·      I would highly recommend checking for run-on sentences. At least in the United States, the majority of people read at the middle school reading level. Increasing readability will help bring awareness to the importance of repatriation and the value of Anthropology and museum studies. This readability is increased by writing sentences in a variety of short, medium, and long lengths. This particular article is predominantly made up of long sentences that people won’t read.

·      The authors may further organize the categories/sections. For example, the “Health considerations” category only consists of one sentence. It lacks the necessary content to be a stand-alone category. Additionally, the specific case studies (Australia, France, etc.) should be smaller sections under a larger category, such as “case studies” or “global practices/responses”

·      Finally, in the Druid section, the author could summarize the opinions of archaeologists in their own words. The author could use one or two quoted sentences as supplemental information, but quotes should not be the bulk of the section.

Images and Media

Rating: Stub

Weaknesses: The article only has 2 photos, which is very low audience-involvement and visual appeal. The captions are informative, yet the content varies in appropriateness. The first image, picturing people at a reburial ceremony, seems very relevant to the topic. It shows the Wikipedia topic put into action. However, the second image is of “Shiney,” a dead Tasmanian man’s preserved head. This image seems counterproductive. The purpose of repatriation is for this man to be buried and laid to rest, not kept in a glass case for each passerby to peer at. However, now this deceased head is immortalized and forever on display in this Wikipedia article. This photo contributes to Spectacalism, in which Shiney is on display as a shock-factor to readers. A photo of this man’s corpse is not necessary or adding anything to educate readers.

Recommendations:

·      There are numerous substitution options. For example, similar to the first image, the author may find images that show how groups have responded to repatriation. For example, it may show meetings between policy makers and Indigenous representatives. It may show the repatriation ceremony or a memorial site.

·      The author could also supplement the article with images of displays after repatriation. For example, at the Pitt Rivers Museum, the Shrunken Heads were removed from display and replaced by thought-provoking questions about ancestor display to visitors.

·      It may also show the digital and creative solutions that museums have found to educate on the topic without displaying the remains.

Talk page discussion

Rating: Stub

Weaknesses: The article is rated start-class across all Wikiprojects involving Archaeology, Death, Indigenous peoples of the Americas, and Europe. It is of high importance within Archaeology and Mid-importance in the remaining projects. Regardless of this importance level, the article has very little involvement. The talk page consists of one user in 2012 going on a personal rant on how researching remains may assist tribes. Another user in 2014 expresses their desire for a historical review of repatriation and the related legislation. They also want more inclusive cases, such as those as Sarah Baartman. However, there have been no changes in response.

Recommendations

·      The topic of repatriation needs to be addressed more on related pages. It is only of mid importance within Wikiprojects of Death, Indigenous people of the Americas, and Europe. However, the status of remains is an important ethical issue in each of these projects. Awareness should be increased by ensuring that repatriation is properly defined and explained on the other pages that it is mentioned.

Overall impressions

Rating: Start

Weaknesses: The article is vague when defining repatriation and addressing the conflicting opinions on repatriation. It fails to explain the history and laws that affect repatriation. Additionally, it unevenly provides examples on specific case studies. The article often overexplains niche details in some sections, whilst neglecting others.

Recommendations:

·      The author may address the debates and beliefs between native groups, scientists, and government.

·      I also recommend addressing the laws that contribute to repatriation, along with their advantages and downfalls.