Everything was relevant in the Wikipedia article covering “Indigenous peoples in Brazil.” However, there were a few things that distracted me in this article. Under the first major heading (“Origin”), indigenous people were referred to as Amerindian people, but further in the article the term Native American was heavily used. I am unfamiliar with the Amerindian term and do not know if it differs significantly from Native Americans. Staying consist with terms used would have led to less confusion. There were also too many subheading underneath the heading of “Native people after European colonization,” which could have been broken down. Lastly, there were a few grammatical errors throughout the article, such as the failure of capitalization at the beginning of sentences.

For the most part, the article was neutral. The article started with a slight positive bias towards the indigenous people of Brazil, as it stated that they made huge contributions to medicine but did not give a citation. In addition, when talking about Cândido Rondon, only his accomplishments were touched upon with barely any autobiographical information. There were also multiple viewpoints that were underrepresented throughout the article. Firstly, the use of violence against the indigenous people of Brazil by the Portuguese colonists was understated, as the first mention of the decline of the indigenous population was only attributed to assimilation and disease and failed to mention wars. However, as the article continued, violence toward the indigenous people was referred to briefly. Elaboration of the religion of indigenous people was also underrepresented as it was barely addressed in the article. The only time religion was really talked about was how the Jesuits acted as protectors of the indigenous people. Lastly, the tribes in the interior of Brazil (the Caribs and the Nuaraque) were underrepresented in comparison to the coastal tribes of Tupi and Tapuia. The DNA aspect of where the indigenous people came from was a tad overrepresented as the article could have talked about more aspect of their culture instead.

All the links I checked in the references section worked. The sources do support the claims in the article accordingly. Sources included empirical articles, government websites, books, and websites of organizations. All sources appeared neutral. About a quarter of the citations were only five years old or younger, but the rest were as old as 1985. This is somewhat troubling as the source from 1985 cited a linguistic survey to count how many different indigenous languages currently exist. This number should be updated since it is over thirty years old and has most likely has changed. The report that cited how many different uncontacted tribes there are is also outdated, as it was conducted over ten years ago. In addition, although all the citations that were presented seemed reliable and functional, not all facts were cited within a paragraph. For example, under the “SPI failure and FUNAI” subheading, there were a few sentences that ended with “citation needed.” This article is rated as C-Class and is a part of WikiProject Indigenous people of the Americas and Wikiproject Brazil. The conversations on the Talk page of this article consists of questions clarifying some sentences, updating numbers, and discussing other potential topics to add on the article. Overall, this article has good aspects, but is missing some cultural information about the tribes that inhabited and still inhabit Brazil, such as their religion. It was interesting to see how Wikipedia tries to present information in a neutral way while in class and history courses in general we tend to examine different perspectives on an event and elaborate on the possible implications it has on society.