User:Marijkev11/sandbox

Article evaluation

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• This article for the most part was neutral however, in the history section the tone seems to change. Terms like "The aggressive tribe" and " the Haida turned their aggression towards European and American traders" I think takes a tone that is no longer neutral but a more colonial perception of how these people chose to represent themselves and should be effectively changed because of this.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• I think that the colonial perspective is very present in the depiction of this article. The history is very much takes a colonial perspective on the events thats occurred, it would have been nice to hear a bit of a Haida voice within this section as it directly relates to the people as a whole.
•  Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 
• "Prior to the 19th century, Haida would speak a number of coastal First Nations languages such as Lingít, Nisg̱a'a and Sm'álgyax." There is no citation to support this claim. This needs more clear sourcing, how do I know this is true if there is no source to support the claim.
• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
• Think they could have gotten into language more. When they mention Edge of the Knife in this section I think they could have been more clear in stating this is a feature length film, entirely in Haida, because this is a huge accomplishment. This is not clear in the way in which they choose to share the movie that it is entirely in Haida.
•  Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? 
• I agree about the map comment. I also agree about the comments talking about making big claims with out providing evidence to support them (this ties into the question above) needing to be changed.
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
• Wiki takes a more conventionally academic perspective on this topic the we do in our class setting. You hear it in the tone and voice used in the writing. It takes an obvious colonial perspective and could be better balanced with a more well rounded interpretation. We as a class, have tried to view the histories that exist on these islands from multiple perspectives where as I feel the wiki takes an obviously colonial dominant one.
• What could you contribute to this article to make it better?
• Give a Haida perspective, or find Haida based sourcing to create a more neutral and well rounded voice and tone throughout the article.