Talk:Statue of Edward Cornwallis

Military history: Canadian / North America

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force

Canada: Nova Scotia Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Nova Scotia.

Peer Review[edit]

Hello, There are several plausible suggestions for improving the article. There are several points within the article that are missing citations. For example, the citation at the end of the lead, talking about the removal proposals. On the note of citations, there seems to be a heavy reliance on news media articles and also John. G. Reid's work. The lack of further perspectives can in part be due missing several citations. As someone who is aware (to only a certain extent) of the current controversies surrounding the statue, the article does not successfully provide a non-bias lens in which the situation is addressed. For example, the article heavily relies on Reid's perspective when discussing the statue's criticism and also Paul's perspective. The article section discussing the controversies does not go into details describing the different historical and current accounts (settler vs. Mi'kmaq) before attempting to negate the plausibility of Mi'kmaq genocide (which was also unsupported). Additionally, there were several quotations (all supporting Cornwallis and the statue), which would have been best to paraphrase, especially that of Councillor Mason. There were also no quotations providing an alternative perspective to the statue. Finally, in the last section detailing the accounts that took place on July 15th 2017, the article states that the protesters "threatened" to remove the statue until the the city came to intervene, is factually incorrect. The cited news article (very biased in their way of addressing the Cornwallis debate, clearly by the title itself) alludes to such an event taking place, but does not indicate whether the city had planned the shrouding with the protestors or not. I recommend finding more citations for that account, in addition to providing a more holistic historical background that includes greater emphasis on Indigenous perspective (with proper citations) throughout the article. It would also be great to continue to add to the article in the upcoming months, as the city promised action surrounding the statue by Mi'kmaq heritage month in October (might be good to add that in as well!) Thank you! Yasbey (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with your points, and I've started to pick away at a more balanced and NPOV rewrite. Some material concerning the statue controversy has been removed from the the Edward Cornwallis biography (where it clearly did not belong) and I'll try to incorporate it here -- where relevant. --OldCommentator (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]