User:Spencerborotsik/sandbox

Article evaluation
The article I will review is the Red River Rebellion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion

The article seems to be fairly well focused, with the one issue of focusing on the rise of Louis Riel to being the leader. While Riel was a very important individual in this event, the article spends too much time on him as a person. Instead, the article should have spent more time on the history of the Metis and their interaction with the government. The article has an excellent balance of the four major groups that affected this event. It looks at why the Metis had concerns and what steps they took to fix the issue. It looks at what the new Canadian government was hoping to both gain and avoid. Lastly, it looks at the competing views of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians. One of the main strengths of this article is that is able to keep a neutral tone despite the conflicting sentiments of those involved. Both the wants and desires of the Metis, Louis Reil, and the Government are all put forward without any argument on who was in the right. By looking first at why the Metis resisted the transfer of their land to the Canadian government, but also why the English speaking population was angry about the events. The author is aware of the complexity of the issues and remains honest to what cannot be confirmed. For example, after explaining the events leading to Thomas Scott's death, and ends by states that historians are unable to agree what Riel was trying to accomplish. The information that is included is mostly up to date, with the citations being very recent publication or primary sources which contribute to the quality of the article.

Early Life
Sweet Grass or Wikaskokiseyin was born in a Cree Camp. The exact date and place of his birth is unrecorded. His mother was kidnapped during a war with the Crees from a tribe, which was located around Missouri. Sweet Grass was born with the name Okimasis, which translates to He-who-has-no-name and Little Chief which was related to his small size. Warriors consistently taunted him due to his stature within the village. His name, “Sweet Grass” was inspired from an audacious feat that he attempted as a youth as he ventured into Blackfoot territory, completely alone with the goal of capturing a heard of horses. Approaching the pasture, he hid in a bush as a man advanced towards him, he then took out his bow, killed and scalped him; proceeding to raid the pasture to return forty horses back to his tribe. His tribe was presented with a collection of grass dipped in the blood of the man he had killed. This was met with chants of “Sweet Grass” which would eventually become his name as a Chief in 1870.

Interaction with the Government
When it came to dealing with the Canadian government, Sweet Grass was more willing to work with them than some other indigenous leaders at the time. One of the requests that Sweet Grass made to the government was to teach the Cree better farming techniques. Another was that the government should stop supplying weapons to the Blackfoot who were his tribe’s enemy. These were just a few of the aspects that Sweet Grass worked with the government on. The overall goal that Sweet Grass wanted to achieve was an end to factionalism that had been plaguing the Plains Cree for years. Sweet Grass’ hope to work with the federal government was challenged by other prominent Cree leaders. Treaty 6 was the biggest piece of legislation that involved Plains Cree leaders. Sweet Grass’ beliefs clashed with that of Big Bear who believed that a Confederacy needed to be formed as a united front in order to get the best terms for all. What Treaty 6 did deliver was more division and segregation between European settlers and Indigenous people. Indigenous people were forced to choose between living on reserves, receiving a fixed amount of money every year for the rest of their lives and trying to assimilate and lose their status. The unpreparedness or perhaps unwillingness of the Canadian government to deal with the problems of indigenous peoples continued long after the signing of Treaty 6 but it was Sweet Grass’ firm belief that this was the best way to ensure that indigenous culture survived.

Legacy

Sweetgrass through both policy and action would have a lasting impact on the plains Cree. By 1870 Chief Sweetgrass would begin to become more integrated into Canadian society. Due to missionaries moving into the interior, there was greater pressure to convert to European religions, which more Cree began to do. Sweetgrass himself would convert to Catholicism in 1870, being given the name Abraham. With encroaching settlers and other indigenous groups, the dwindling of traditional hunting, and disease rampant , Sweetgrass and his band of Cree were desperate for support. When Treaty 6 was put forward by the Canadian government in 1876, Sweetgrass was heavily influential in bringing his Plains Cree into the agreement. He was of the view that the traditional hunting was unsustainable, forcing the Cree to look for other options. This would be Sweetgrass's last major influence on his people, as he would die shortly after signing the Treaty. While the signing of the treaty can be seen as selling away indigenous rights, it did bring much needed medication and food to the Cree who had very limited options.

Peer Review
There is a of work that can be done to this article. The lead I find is very short and needs more information as it does not provide balanced coverage for the rest of the article. Overall, there is very little information on his life and perhaps more information can be gathered on his interactions with the Hudson's Bay Company or look further into the raids he was apart of. There is also a need for more academic citations. A citation is needed for the statement: "He is said to have acquired his name after taking an enemy's scalp and storing it in sweet grass". I did not find any grammatical errors but trying to add more information and ensuring the paragraphs will be cohesive and flow nicely from topic to topic. Nadine Viveiros (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead section: I feel that the lead section is rather short for it's purpose. at first I was unsure if the article had a lead to begin with. More emphasis on the importance and summary of events is needed to make it stronger.

Structure: The structure of your article is very well done. If I had to make a suggestion, it would be possibly a further breakdown of events under headings. I particularly enjoy the Legacy segment, and with more work it will be a tremendous addition to the article. Balanced coverage: In my opinion, the article is very well balanced for the heading that are provided. Neutral content: The content appears to be neutral throughout the article draft. Reliable sources: The academc content cited seem to be credible and properly cited.

Overall, a very well done article and I am in awe of your tech skills. Those headings are glorious. JWallace96 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)