User:Peterpietri/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: Norse colonization of North America
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to evaluate this article after reading The Red Atlantic: Transoceanic Cultural Exchanges, which brought light to the way Vikings treated indigenous peoples and how their settling on the land took place in L'Anse aux Meadows. In American history, Vikings are taught as brave and mighty people who "discovered" North America, when in fact that is not true. While I think it is now more common knowledge as to how colonizers in the era of Christopher Columbus treated indigenous peoples, it is not widely known how the Vikings interacted with indigenous peoples and how they were treated, and that needs to become accessible knowledge as the Norse people treated indigenous populations atrociously.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead's introductory sentence is a concise and clear description of the article's topic, although, following the introductory sentence, not enough further information is provided. The lead is almost too concise and does not properly introduce all the sections of the article. Instead, the Lead focuses mostly on the Viking's involvement in L'Anse aux Meadows and briefly mentions their involvement in Greenland, and also briefly introduces the duration of Norse contact. There are 2 other main topics that the article covers that the Lead did not introduce (pseudohistory & historiography). Thus, all information in the Lead is in the article, however not all topics in the article are covered in the 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

Although most of the content is relevant and up-to-date, there needs to be great improvements in the information regarding the interactions between Norse people and indigenous peoples. Although the article swiftly mentions "hostility" between indigenous peoples and the Vikings, it stops there and falls short. It fails to acknowledge the capturing of two indigenous children, a severe event that I find significant and essential in discussing when talking about Vikings in North America. Thus, it does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, as it does not coherently pain the picture as to what happened between the two groups of people. Therefore, no, the content is not up-to-date. The content that is covered in the article is relevant to the topic. No, the article does not properly deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.


 * 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

I would say there are hidden biases in the article. For one, they reference the Vikings as having "discovered" America when that is simply a large fallacy, as indigenous populations had long before discovered that land. I would not say these biases are strong attempts to persuade the reader, as it is more so an issue with wording that reinforces outdated, prejudicial beliefs of Native Americans. I do not think these biases in wording are deliberate, but they are serious, and in need of fixing. The indigenous viewpoint is greatly underrepresented here, and not enough information is given as to what the indigenous experience was like, and how the two groups of peoples interacted with one another, other than mere "hostility."


 * 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

Every statement involving a fact is followed by a citation. Sources are kind of all over the place, and are not necessarily wholly current. Some sources date back to 1965, while some are from just 2 years ago. Because of the addition of more modern and up-to-date sources, the sources do overall reflect the available literature on Norse contact in North America. Most of the facts are backed by reliable sources (National Geographic, JSTOR, PBS, for examples). The authors are homogenous and white, and there are no indigenous authors to convey the indigenous perspective in regard to their experiences and interpretation of the history involving the two groups. Not all links work, as some involve paying in order to read.


 * 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

The article is fairly concise, clear, and is overall an easy read. There are no present grammatical or spelling errors that I could see. I think the article is very well-organized, as it first divides up Viking involvement in two groups based on geographical location— Greenland & Vinland. It then moves on to pseudohistory, so to discuss other areas where Vikings might have been involved in North America, although not necessarily confirmed, and then duration of Norse contact, followed by historiography. I think these main sections are the major points of the topic and they align and flow into one another smoothly. That being said, more information is still necessary in the Vinland section in regard to indigenous peoples (perhaps a subsection).


 * 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 include images that showcase the extent/reach of the Norse people and also show present day L'Anse aux Meadows, which enhance understanding of the topic. However, I do take issue with one picture of Leif Erikson, in which the caption is "Leif Erikson discovers North America," which reinforces the subtle biases in the language choice used throughout the article. This connects to Merrill's reading, as he stresses the role of lexicon in causing certain stereotypes to persist and transcend through time. The other photos, however, are information and arranged in an aesthetically-pleasing manner. All photos do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (all are in public domain).


 * 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

Much of the conversations on the talk page are regarding whether the title is appropriate, as to whether or not it should be Norse—colonization, exploration, or settlement—of North America. There has not been much consensus, as people seem to disagree about the technicalities of what constitutes colonization, with the Vikings not technically being a nation. This article is rated as C-Class and is part of several WikiProjects, including the WikiProject on Indigenous peoples of the Americas and the Wiki Project on Colonialism. Wikipedia's discussions do not focus enough on how indigenous peoples were implicated in the Vikings involvement in North America. Whereas Wikipedia seems to focus more on the overall trend of Vikings across North America, in class, and in Weaver's reading in particular, we focused on the treatment of indigenous peoples at the hand of the Vikings, lead by Leif Erikson. There was, however, one mention on the talk page of how Native American contact was not covered enough, yet the article did not change.


 * 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

The article's strengths are its use of images and maps in enhancing understanding—although one image is biased—as well as its organization, dividing the Norse involvement into two main areas (Greenland and Vinland). The article is overall lacking in many areas, and is in need of more specificity in regard to indigenous peoples and how they were treated at the hand of the Norse people. The article also needs to be cleared of the subtle biases as portended through the diction when referring the Viking involvement in the Americas, as they did not discover the land. The status of the article is that it needs to be revised to clear up these biases and lapses in information. I would say it is therefore underdeveloped, although it can be easily made better and more coherent through revisions.


 * 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: Talk:Norse colonization of North America