User:Bque/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead section A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section. 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? (It shouldn't.) Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another. 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 Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books. 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? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization and writing quality The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections. 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 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? Talk page discussion The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of. 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 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? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting

The article being evaluated is the article on the Oka Crisis, available at Oka Crisis.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because of the connection between environmental development and conflict between activists and indigenous communities in Canada and provincial and federal government bodies, specifically choosing it for my familiarity with its significance in modern Canadian history and Canadian politics. The Oka Crisis, or Kanesatake Resistance, carries a significant weight in the current relationship between indigenous communities and the crown and provincial/federal government, not only being deemed within the article as being "the first well-publicized violent conflict between First Nations and the Canadian government in the late 20th century", but especially in the context of the ongoing conflict in Wet'suwet'en territory in British Columbia. My preliminary impressions of the article were that although it was generally well-written, the article was also relatively brief and could potentially benefit from the addition of First Nations and Indigenous viewpoints.

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section:

Overall, I felt that the article's lead section could be improved. Specifically, although the introductory sentence concisely and clearly describes the conflict, the relevant information (ie. provided via the military conflict infobox template) and its importance to relations between First Nations communities and the federal government, I found the lead section to be slightly too concise, in particular, lacking a brief description of (or direct connection to) the article's major sections — for example, the lead section does not discuss the resolution and aftermath of the dispute, instead leaving this summary to the short "result" section of the infobox. The lead section was however, in my opinion, effective in conveying the information that it did, acknowledging specifically that it did not include any information that was not present in the article.

Content:

Assessing the article, its content is entirely relevant to the events of the 78-day stand-off, the context and background behind the conflict, and the resolution and events since the Oka Crisis. This content is up-to-date, with much of it self-contained to the events before and during the crisis itself. Additional references to the legacy of the Oka Crisis in media, art and popular culture are also present, with inclusions of references as recent as 2020. Consulting external sources (The Canadian Encyclopedia, the Harvard International Review and CBC/Radio Canada), there are some elements of content that are not present in the original Wikipedia article; in particular, there is no mention of the Oka Crisis' effects on the creation of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, while the only mention of the protests on Wet'suwet'en territory in British Columbia is in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article.

Tone and balance:

Assessing the article for its tone and balance, I find that the article, like many other articles of its nature, is written from a tone that is very much of a Western (or colonialist)-dominated point-of-view; that is, it appears to be written from a non-Mohawk/non-First Nations and Indigenous point-of-view. Although the article is not heavily biased nor does it attempt to persuade the reader of a certain viewpoint (e.g. if the article were to attempt to antagonize either side in the conflict), other editors have also raised points on the Talk page for the article concerning "the lack of [a] Mohawk voice" within the article.

Sources and references:

In regards to sources and references, the content within this article appears to be well-cited, with numerous citations and references to a wide variety of authors. Several of these citations were also added recently and/or otherwise made current, with references retrieved as recently as November 2021. They appear to be thorough in nature, with the article also having a 'Further sources' section. Looking more closely into the list of citations however, it can be seen that the citations listed are a mix of peer-reviewed articles, novels and memoirs written on the conflict and news coverage (albeit not completely devoid of errors, many of these news articles come from reputable outlets and are some of the only sources for parts of the topic).

Organization and writing quality:

As stated previously, in terms of the content that is present within the article, the article is well-written. There is a natural flow to the article, aided by the organization of the article into separate sections discussing the context prior to the conflict, the conflict itself and what happened after the end of the conflict. Analyzing the article, there were a few grammatical and spelling errors, though none of which prevented understanding of the article.

Images and media:

Two images are included within the article; one depicting Sûreté du Québec and Canadian Forces personnel in the vicinity of Oka, and one depicting members of the Seton Lake Indian Band blockading BC Rail railways in support of the Mohawk at Oka.

In the case of the former, the image is one retrieved from the Wikimedia Commons, where it was originally posted by user SamuelFreli in September 1990. The image has the caption "Members of the SQ Police 3 September 1990"; this wording could be improved to be more reflective of the original description (in French) attributed to the photo.

In the case of the latter, the image is one that was added to the article, being uploaded and released into the public domain by user Dtaw2001 in 2005. The original description given to the image by the poster reads "Native Indians from the Seton Lake Indian Band blockade the BC Rail line in support of Oka, while an RCMP officer looks on", which is reflected in the caption for the image, along with a short description of some of the results of these protests that occurred in support of those in Oka.

Talk page discussion:

As previously mentioned, there are two discussions on the Talk page for this article, both pertaining to the point-of-view and language used within the article. The article itself is part of four WikiProjects; "Canada / Quebec", "Indigenous peoples of North America", "Military history" and "Montreal", being rated as C-class in all four of these WikiProjects. On the whole, going back to class discussions on this topic have proceeded, the way in which Wikipedia discusses this topic, particularly the point-of-view aspect of the discussion, are not entirely different from those that we have had in class; much like the discussions that we have had in class concerning the framing of colonialism and imperialism, the discussion on Wikipedia is concerned with how different viewpoints and biases are (or are not) represented.

Overall impressions:

Overall, I found that this article, despite some shortcomings and areas of improvements, was on the whole, fairly well-written. Although there have been edits made to this article recently, many of these revisions have also been reverted, indicating that there have not been regular contributions or edits made to this article recently. Given the previously mentioned potential additions, I would classify this article as being underdeveloped in some scopes, in particular, its lasting effects and legacy on First Nations and Indigneous culture in Canada.