User:Sneeweed/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 electorates
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I am greatly interested in the politics of the Māori electorates and the role of the Māori Peoples in Parliament.
 * After reading through the talk section on this article, it has become apparent to me that many of the edits and proposed edits date way back to 2010, with minimal updates up to current day. Most of the edits do not have replies, and the article still remains on the c-class list. I would like to add some new information to the article (as the years pass, more information is readily available) to make it more current.
 * Also, I have noticed after thorough reading, there needs to be better organization of the article with more subheadings for easier navigation.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it could be more concise and to the point
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sections: Organisation, Establishment, Elections, Calls for abolition, Number of electorates, Party politics
 * Could be more organized, contains most descriptions, could go a bit deeper to explain more so the reader can read the lead and know exactly what the article is about. Could be more clear to explain more to the reader.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not state how many electorates there are. It says it underneath a photo near the lead, but I think its valuable information to include in the lead. They should succinctly explain the transition from four electorates for parliamentary seats to the seven electorates present today.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Almost to a point of being too concise. Needs to be easier to read with a bit more information about each section.

Lead evaluation

 * Definitely needs work. There is information missing, especially when the lead is the section where the reader should know what the article is going to present.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat. The historic timeline is there, with information from the 1867 Māori Representation Act onward. It is missing relevant information from 2018 onwards. Having information that is current as possible will help readers engage more with the article and gain more current knowledge about the subject.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article does not include who was elected according to each electorate in any election. This information is easy to retrieve as there are many recognized international newspapers and academic presses who report on New Zealand, at least for their most current election. This can lead to linking other wikipedia articles to the people elected, or even create a path for new articles to be written about them, if they don't exist.

Content evaluation

 * There is content missing. Further research will allow the the gaps to be filled. Also I think the incorporation of subheadings beneath the section titles will help for both organisation and for further content to be added.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Most parts. There are some sections that lack sourcing so it comes across as the author's opinion (even if it isn't) which gives a sense of bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The section, Calls for abolition, for example has only 10 citations in the entire section, even though it is one of the largest articles. This gives off the impression that a majority of the section in bias because they do not have independent, non-bias sources to back up the information being presented.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are many Conservative viewpoints that standout to me in the article, mostly because other viewpoints are limitedly expressed. This does give off the impression of a biased article, as only one main viewpoint is being stated.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another?
 * When reading the article, I don't feel a sense of persuasion from the author. They don't express all viewpoints on certain topics that can be considered controversial, which can passively persuade the reader without realizing.

Tone and balance evaluation

 * Definitely needs work. The addition of further information and other viewpoints as well as editing tone of voice to be more factual will allow this article to be neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. When reading through the talk section, it was addressed in 2010 about the severe lack of sourcing. Since then, it has been minimally improved. In the evaluating tutorial, it is recommended to cite at least once per paragraph. In most of the paragraphs in this article, there is an occasional citation, or none at all. This is concerning as much of the information presented is not common knowledge and therefore needs to be cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the ones that are cited are thorough, but there is much more literature available on the subject. Māori politics are an important subject today as they are an insight into Indigenous politics and are an example for other countries to follow.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, up to 2018. There are probably more sources from 2019 available now as well.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they do.

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are sources in this article, but in total, there needs to be many more. There are claims in the article that do not have any support from references. This is a huge problem for credibility, fact-checking and neutral tone of voice. Personally, this is the biggest problem in the article, and that's why I posted it in the talk section as feedback.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part it is well written. There are a few areas that require sentence modifications (word-choice and structure) that will allow for better clarity and understanding for the reader.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few grammatical and punctuation errors. I would read the article out-loud to help with detection of further errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * There are large major sections that do require sub-headings. This would allow readers to find specific information and help with clarity.

Organization evaluation

 * The lack of sub-headings in the article remain the issue that I personally believe needs work in this section. It will allow for clarity and better navigation of the topic. The addition of sub-headings also will allow the inclusion for more information without it being overwhelming (as one giant section would be).

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * This article only has 1 image. It contains a map of New Zealand that is broken down into the named Māori electorates.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, it is a bit long, but in encapsulates what the image represents.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The image states that it's the work of the creators of the article. I'm assuming this means that they made the image but did not cite where their knowledge of the map/electorates came from. I personally think it needs a source because it did not randomly come out of their brains.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Its at the beginning of the article, which provides a good start to understand how the electorates are broken down.

Images and media evaluation

 * This section needs work to allow for better engagement and visual appeal to readers. The addition of more images will allow for this article to be more eye-catching as well.

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 majority of the conversations on this article are from 2010. The proposed move in the article was talking about changing it from Māori Seats to Māori Electorates to make it more academic. Through reading the article, this change has been made and fulfilled. Another conversation, from 2018, discussed the use of macrons (ā), and how they should be represented in historic acts/legislation and used in names. One person seemed frustrated at another's edits because they were not explaining the reason behind changing certain things. I did learn from reading the talk page how important it is to explain your actions when editing an article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class) and WikiProject New Zealand / Politics / Māori (Rated C-class, High-importance).

Talk page evaluation

 * The talk page is a helpful tool when evaluating and editing an article. It allows you to look into some issues that others had when writing and editing, as well as a good way to look for feedback.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status is a c-class article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article has a great start of the subtopics that need to be addressed within the topic of Māori Electorates. There is information in the article that is important and crucial to the topic
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Citations, images and neutrality.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it is underdeveloped. It needs a lot more citations to support unclaimed facts and statements, the addition of more images to engage the reader as well as citations to make the article more neutral

Overall evaluation

 * This article is underdeveloped and needs work to make it credible. Through my evalution, I have been able to address both of the strengths and weaknesses in order to make this article to be published as complete.

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:Māori electorates (mine is the sourcing comment at the bottom, I do not know how to link it specifically)