User:Mishyback/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: Māori science
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article addresses a relatively new academic discipline that attempts to integrate traditional Maori knowledge into scientific frameworks. It is an attempt to decolonize science, which I find very fascinating.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the article's introductory sentence concisely describes the topic, outlining the major bodies of knowledge drawn from in the discipline.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not really include any description of the major sections in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it contains specific information about discoveries made by Maori science as a discipline, which probably would be better suited for the "Impact" section of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead contains too many specific details and does not outline the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, it is all pertinent to the subject
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It is relatively up to date in certain parts, but the article overall is lacking in content and could be substantiated much further.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More historical content and more examples of contributions and figures associated with Maori science would make the article better. The content is overall too vague and does not have specific enough examples to fully substantiate the claims made about the impact of the discipline, though I have no doubt that the discipline has been impactful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it is very specifically addressing issues of racism, sexism, and colonialism. Indigenous contributions to science especially have historically been underrepresented by Western academic institutions in general.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral and tries to cover topics pertaining to multiple marginalized groups of people.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, except that the entire article is about Maori people and so that should obviously be the focus of the piece.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article would benefit from getting more viewpoints in general and does not have enough information on the topic.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it presents the information in a neutral tone that highlights the accomplishments of indigenous people who have been suppressed and erased historically.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * For the most part, although some of the links were inaccessible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources that I could access seemed thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources were written by mostly white people so far as I could tell, but all dealt with issues of including marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Not all of them work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is concise, with a few spots where it is unclear.
 * 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 contains important information about the inclusion of women and the effects of colonization. However, it could use more historical context and concrete information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images are included.
 * 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?
 * The talk page discusses wanting to add further elaborations on the distinctions between Maori and Western science. It also critiques some of the language present in the article as making claims it cannot substantiate through evidence.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of WikiProject Science and WikiProject New Zealand
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Too short, but still brings up interesting points and contains useful pieces of information about important indigenous women in science.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Highlights import historical figures and contextualizes Maori science as a decolonization effort, which is very intriguing.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Needs more historical evidence to substantiate the claims made in the article about having greatly impacted New Zealand and indigenous communities. This is not to say that I don't believe the claims, but rather that they could use some more evidence.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is a good start, but certainly not well-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: