User:Wilentja/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: Eskimo
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I believe it does not cover the extensive problematic nature behind the term. I added a line to the article regarding its relationship to the Central Algonquian language and the Ojibwe people (before I realized I was not supposed to add a line). This should be included because many Indigenous peoples in this area had other names, and colonizers imposed the term "Eskimo" on many people who did not use it themselves.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * I think the Lead does a relatively decent job in describing the article's topic. It nicely identifies its relationship (although flawed) to the Indigenous peoples who live around the North Pole. However, I do feel this first sentence could be reworded a bit better. Instead of saying these people "are" Eskimos, it could perhaps say this is a term placed onto these peoples. By saying these people are Eskimos, it reduces a part of their identity.
 * I think the Lead does a relatively decent job in describing the article's topic. It nicely identifies its relationship (although flawed) to the Indigenous peoples who live around the North Pole. However, I do feel this first sentence could be reworded a bit better. Instead of saying these people "are" Eskimos, it could perhaps say this is a term placed onto these peoples. By saying these people are Eskimos, it reduces a part of their identity.


 * 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
 * I think the article's content is mainly relevant to the topic and up-to-date. However, I feel the content that is missing circulates around the origin of this offensive term and where it is mentioned in the article. While there are a few paragraphs cover its problematic past, I feel its offensive nature should be mentioned in the first or second sentences. The term "Eskimo" is not preferred by these people; therefore, I believe the content mentioning this should be placed right in the beginning.


 * 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 do not see many issues with the tone of this article. It comes off as neutral and seeks to give the reader more information on who "Eskimo" people are. I do think the tone should be a bit stronger against using the term because it is inappropriate.


 * 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
 * All of the facts in the article seem to be backed up by reliable secondary sources. I have noticed how some sources are outdated (from the 1960s and 1970s). The academic scholarship seems to leave out some Indigenous voices. All of the links I have checked have worked.


 * 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
 * I mentioned the organization in the content section. While I think the article is easy to read and relatively clear of grammatical and spelling errors, I do not like how it does not debunk the term as offensive right off the bat. I wonder if there is a way to set up a link to the proper pages of these Indigenous people whenever someone searches "Eskimo." The proper terms and people are under the term Eskimo, which I do not feel is the most appropriate.


 * 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
 * I think this article is absolutely fine with regards to images and media. They seem to represent the diversity of peoples to whom the term wrongfully refers.


 * 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
 * The talk page seems to address some of the concerns I have raised in previous responses. It points out some valid stereotypes and brings in new and underrepresented voices. I really appreciate the intentionality behind these responses as it adds to my perception of the issue.


 * 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
 * This article is strong because it at least starts a conversation on this problematic term. It does highlight many Indigenous nations and cultures. However, the structure and organization need work. It needs to be clear why these people should not be addressed as Eskimos, rather by the name of their unique nation.


 * 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: