User:OutskirtAZ/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating is “Seasoning (Slavery)” [URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasoning_(slavery)]

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I initially stumbled upon this article while searching for Wikipedia pages about how enslaved Americans affected the development of the United States’ cuisine; however, after reading the article and learning the true meaning of “seasoning” in relation to slavery, I chose this article because I believe it covers a crucial topic surrounding slavery that is rarely discussed or taught. In the American public school system, slavery is often spoken about so objectively that students are not given a complete picture of the processes required to uphold such a complex system of forced labor for so many years. My initial reaction to the article was shock, particularly because of the nearly inappropriate-sounding verbiage of this term as well as the cruelty associated with the “seasoning” process.

Evaluate the article
The lead section of the article clearly defines the meaning of “seasoning” in relation to slavery, provides a summary of the subtopics that will be covered in the article, and is concise for the most part. However, the latter half of the lead section delves into how and why the “seasoning” process was developed, something which may be more logically organized into its own separate section. In terms of content, the information contained in the subsections of the article is relevant to the topic and up to date; however, because of the controversial nature of the topic, new information is being unearthed every day and therefore there may be some newer information which is yet to be added to the article. There are no glaring gaps in content, but I find that the “Diet” section of the article is significantly briefer than the others. The article deals with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps as it is about Black enslaved Americans. For this reason, it is important that the article comes from a neutral point of view so as to not distort the unique history of a marginalized group. I did not encounter any clear instances of bias in this article or attempts to shape the reader’s opinion, but due to the traumatizing content included within the article, I can see how it may be difficult to put forth a “neutral” position, particularly because we must be conscious not to downplay the atrocities associated with American slavery.

All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source as far as I can tell; many of the sources cited come from university-published texts that are not linked online but appear to be from a reliable source. The two sources which are linked online are journal articles from 1980 and 1994, which appears to be somewhat outdated, but may cover the topic in a very comprehensive fashion which may not be available in newer pieces about the topic. Other than these sources, several of them are from the 19th century themselves, which is perhaps as primary as possible in the context of this article. These older sources are not told from the slaves themselves but are rather medical texts by white doctors from the period which outline what sort of treatment was “prescribed” to the enslaved people of the time period. There are a few sources from authors of historically marginalized groups, but the number of sources from white authors greatly outnumber these. As far as better sources go, there does not appear to be a very large body of literature available about the seasoning process which indicates that texts about the larger topic of slavery may need to be used to find further information about this topic.

In general, the article is well written with logical organization and no present grammatical or spelling errors. Perhaps the greatest flaw of the article is the lack of images and media but given the sensitive nature of slavery and the other topics of conversation surrounding slavery other than “seasoning,” I find it is safe to say that images may not enhance the article. The talk page is relatively brief, but the most prominent conversation is about whether or not the term “seasoning” is appropriate to apply to this process of enslavement, but the author of the comments states that they do not know whether or not the cited books and articles (which are not linked to an online source) support the usage of this term. The article is part of six WikiProjects, all of which rate it as of being of “low-importance” except for one WikiProject which rates the article as being of “top-importance.”

Overall, the article seems like it could use some work in terms of the quantity of information, the number of sources used, and the depth of topics covered. For the topics covered in the article, the current state of the information provided is concise and provides a solid foundation for delving deeper into the topic. The article is somewhat underdeveloped but is definitely not poorly developed. However, the question of whether or not the term “seasoning” is appropriate for the topic perhaps makes it somewhat more difficult to continue building on the article.

Feedback from Instructor on Article Evaluation
Nice work. I agree that this is a difficult article to read and evaluate because the process it describes is so abhorrent. To that end, I think it would be worth considering whether the term "seasoning" should be in quotation marks every time it is used. Not doing so seems to legitimize the term to my mind. I imagine there exist strong critiques of the use of the term. If so, these could be usefully summarized in a new "Criticism" section.

Also, I don't think the word "objectively" conveys what you likely mean in this sentence, come see me to discuss: "In the American public school system, slavery is often spoken about so objectively that students are not given a complete picture of the processes required to uphold such a complex system of forced labor for so many years." Saguaro23 (talk) 22:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)