Talk:Native American mascot controversy/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I will read the article over the next day or two and leave comments here. I generally split this into three sections. The first is related directly to the criteria and any major issues found will be located here. I must be satisfied with these for the article to pass. The second will mostly be general comments that I note while reading the article. It may include examples from previous sections, points I think can be clarified and even general musings. I encourage any discussion on these comments and am generally willing to change my mind or compromise on them if you can provide sufficient justification. The last section will be a source review, where I will look at random, and some not so random, sources to make sure they support what they are citing and aren't too closely paraphrased. Regards AIR corn (talk) 08:38, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Yes this is a very long article. Was a good read though and I was kept my interest through most of it (although the trends section became a nit of a slog).
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Prose is generally excellent. Some queries in the comments section, but nothing major.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No obvious problems here. Didn't really like the links jumping between sections much though.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Well and truly
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I guess this is one of the key issues. It is long, at 50 kB and 8066 word it is at the upper limit of WP:SIZERULE, but still within limits. The article seems to cover alot more than the title reflects, so maybe there is a better encompassing title that could be used. If you want it to be just about the Mascots you could quite easily cut the article down. I am not going to fail on size and although some of the details in the trends section (not sure that is a great header) could probably be summarised better it is not bad.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * It does favour a point of view on the issue, but I feel doing otherwise would create WP:FALSEBALANCE. There are a few minor points in my comments regarding some things said in wikipedias voice that might be better attributed.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * One main editor and no evidence of recent edit warring. The talk page shows some disagreement dating back a couple of years
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Images seem to check out
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * File:FedExField - Redskins Jaguars pregame field.jpg caption says it shows the logo, but it is mostly crowd and half the wording is cut off. I am not sure it is a great image to depict the logo.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * File:FedExField - Redskins Jaguars pregame field.jpg caption says it shows the logo, but it is mostly crowd and half the wording is cut off. I am not sure it is a great image to depict the logo.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments

 * > My annotations in blue.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Title

 * The title says "Native American mascot controversy", but the article goes into just as much detail on names and logos.
 * The academic sources on the topic generally use this title, "mascot" being short for "names, logos, and mascots"

Lead

 * However, the greatest change has occurred in the trend by school and college teams that have retired Native American names and mascots at an increasing rate in recent decades. Found this a little awkward. What is the however in relation to? What time frame is covered by recent decades? Using change, trend and increasing rate together make what I think is a pretty straight forward point a little cumbersome. I am not even sure it fits in that paragraph as written as there are no previous mentions of change to make this one the greatest.
 * This summarizes the Trends section for me, but may be pushing the boundaries of speculation for WP without a ref. Commented out until I find one.
 * The issue is often discussed in the media only.... Could this sentence be split in two
 * Done
 * Some see a connection between using caricatures of Native Americans as sports mascots and their political and economic marginalization; resulting in decisions such as building the Dakota Access Pipeline being made while excluding Native Americans. Don't quite follow this. How does the first result in the second. Am I missing some context?
 * The cited source supports the connection between being trivialized as mascots and being politically powerless, using the pipeline as the most recent example. Perhaps more details are needed to provide context, but if lengthy should go in the body of the article. Reworded somewhat.
 * For example, in 2016 when one of the teams in the National College Prospects Hockey League (NCPHL) was announced as the Lake Erie Warriors with a caricature Mohawk logo[10] it was immediate changed to the Lake Erie Eagles. I feel specific examples would work better in the body instead of the lead as the lead is supposed to be a summary f the article.
 * Yes, this content moved to trends section.

History

 * Founded as the Boston Red Stockings, the team became the Braves for the first time in 1912 Might want to mention it is a football team here as I was a little confused when I read about the other Boston Braves further down. Also were there other times?
 * The Redskins in Washington, D.C. were originally also known as the Boston Braves when formed in 1932 Surely they weren't called the Boston Braves while in DC? DC is mentioned later anyway so might not be necessary here and is confusing for people who don't realise how much these teams move around.
 * After moving to the home of the Boston Red Sox Do you mean they were sharing Fenway Park with the Sox.
 * Thus, the use of Native American names and imagery by this team began before the hiring of William Henry Dietz as coach in 1933. Relevance of this? Also the previous sentence says they were named the redskins in 1933 so this statement seems a little contradictory.
 * As a non-American only slightly familiar with baseball I found following the history of the teams a little confusing. I think I got it in the end, but I did have to read it a few times. The confusion only consisted around the Braves/Redskins history (Indians was fine).
 * All the content on the former Boston teams (Braves, Redskins) has been re-written.

Viewpoints

 * On these stereotypes, the NCAI states these mascots, "slander, defame... This quote got a little lost on my read through. It doesn't help that it is quite long, but also the quotes within the quote play a part. Maybe it can be broken up or trimmed a bit.
 * The US Civil Rights Commission statement has been paraphrased rather than directly quoted. I worry about not including all the nuances and detail, but readability may be more important.
 * I notice you have some see alsos at the bottom of sections. Is there a reason for this? Convention is usually to put them just under the heading.
 * It has been my practice to place "main article" below the title and "see also/further" links after the content that the linked article expands upon
 * Five of the college teams originally listed by the NCAA as possibly "hostile and abusive" (see below) established relationships with specific tribes that allowed them to retain their names. We don't usually have links between articles, but this is a minor issue. I think this needs a reference. While I am sure it is referenced below, I would feel more comfortable having a reference next to a sentence that describes something as "hostile and abusive"
 * Changed to a general statement about agreements between teams and tribes supported by the NCAI policy.
 * Research also demonstrates the harm done to society by stereotyping of any kind. This is unclear to me. Is it a standalone statement (in which case it needs a ref) or is it referring to the following sentences?
 * Yes, reworded somewhat to make the connection clearer.
 * Should spell out acronyms first time they are used. I have found NCAA and NAACP so far.
 * The civil rights advisory opinion matches the source almost word-for-word.
 * paraphrased
 * and team owner Daniel Snyder What team did he own? Was there a response?
 * by the owner of the Washington Redskins, Daniel Snyder There it is. I would move this up to the first mention of him.
 * Moved up.
 * ...which ignores the origins of the controversy in the protests by Native American individuals and groups cited above. Don't think this should be said in Wikipedias voice. Also dislike this internal more than the previous one as readers generally start at the top.
 * Many argue there is a double standard in Native Americans being the only racial group depicted in sports You sure about this? We have the Chiefs (rugby union) here (logo is a Maori Warrior and mascot is a Maori rugby playerand [[New Zealand Warriors] (similar logos and mascot). I see this is somewhat addressed below wiht ethnic groups (I was also thinking of the Celtics), but still find it too much f a blanket statement without a source directly backing it up. Also don't like the use of many either without qualifiers. How many is many?
 * Reworded; will try to find ref.
 * The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights call for an end to the use of Native American mascots cited above Another internal link. One or two maybe, but there are probably too many.
 * Replaces link with ref.
 * ...but when additional questions were asked also have found that the same respondents said "redskin" is not an appropriate term for Native Americans Could we have the percentage that agreed with this?
 * ...states that both SI and Annenberg's samples of... First mention of Annenberg. What was her poll?
 * Pulled details from linked article on polls.

Trends

 * The documents most often cited to justifying the changes cited below... Awkward with two mentions of "cited" and more self referencing.
 * Reworded
 * Changes made by schools and universities became more frequent in the 1990s... unreferenced
 * Not essential, so I removed it. Since the article is so long, is readability improved by such unreferenced summary statements at the beginning of sections, or is this only allowed in the article lead?
 * Statewide laws or school board decisions have passed... What are these laws? I am assuming they are for limiting or outlawing the use of Native American mascots, but it should probably say.
 * added "...regarding team names and mascots.."
 * The Wisconsin law passed... What law passed?
 * Added details on laws
 * There was discussion about the "Indians" name at El Reno High School, El Reno, Oklahoma when a Native American student was not allowed to wear a beaded mortarboard at graduation Whats a beaded mortarboard? I could noy find a link in wikipedia. Why is it significant?
 * Added wikilink to Square academic cap. Shows the irony of non-natives calling themselves Indians but not allowing an actual Native to use Indian beadwork to decorate a graduation cap.
 * Why is Arapahoe High School not under the United States sub heading?
 * Moved content
 * Niigaan Sinclair (Anishinaabe), a writer and assistant professor at the University of Manitoba, applauded the decision It doesn't actually say what the decision was. I am assuming it is not the decision to file a complaint?
 * The team was changed to the "Nepean Eagles", chosen from 70 suggestions submitted Moving this up would solve my previous issue.
 * Moved
 * The school officials state that they will have meetings and gather public opinions before making a decision Are they still deciding?
 * Three years with no further news, perhaps this can be removed
 * The symbol of the Stanford Band is the "Stanford Tree, but it is not a mascot." How is this relevant?
 * Must have been in the article since before my time, removed
 * Suzan Shown Harjo says the Blackhawks have escaped the scrutiny given to other teams Who is she?
 * Is the wikilink to her article insufficient?
 * who are few in the Edmonton area Do you mean that there are not many Inuits in Edmonton? Sentence read a little awkwardly
 * Moved content to an existing section in the team article.
 * Team owner Daniel Snyder sent an open letter to fans... Snyder was mentioned earlier and this feels very similar. Also you probably only need to link him and mention that he owns the redskins the first time.
 * I will write a summary of support for the Redskins that does not duplicate content.

Other

 * NDSU fans also wear offensive T-shirts Do you mean to imply that all fans do this?
 * No, it is just an example of rival fan behavior.
 * Might need some cites for "Teams outside America"
 * Difficult, since they are in German.
 * Some context missing from some "see also" entries
 * It would also be nice to have some more info on where the external links lead
 * Many of the external links where added by other editors, and appear to be off-topic, so I removed them.

Reference check
To come. AIR corn (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor comments
The above is welcome editorial assistance that I had hoped for. I have been contributing to this article for ten years, and have been immersed in the extensive literature on the topic, and have made assumptions about the general knowledge the typical reader might have. It has not been seen with fresh eyes for some time, and perhaps never with this thoroughness. I will address the points above over the next few days.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have decided it will be easier to follow and verify if I make inline annotations to the review comments above.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Other edits
I realized that the lead contained content on cultural appropriation that was not addressed in the article, so I moved that paragraph to the appropriate section.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Final comments
AIR corn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The further reading link to "List of secondary school sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples" is labelled "List of schools". I understand why you didn't use the full name, but maybe there is a compromise that gives a little bit more detail on where it leads. AIR corn (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Finished a second read trough and the prose is excellent. AIR corn (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just want to make a comment on the lead. It may read a little opinionated if taken alone, but everything is supported in the body and it provides a nice summary of a long article.
 * Re:"List of schools", changed to "List of secondary schools using Native American names or mascots"
 * Due and undue weight is a tricky balance when the peer-reviewed academic sources are all on one side of a controversy and mostly biased opinion (sports fans, team owners, etc.) is on the other. The current balance, giving the latter their say in the lead with only mild rebuttal, has stood for some time.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Life got in the way a bit. My comment on the lead was merely to acknowledge that I am happy with the neutrality of it, even though it might appear to some as biased. I am very familiar with the trickiness of balancing controversial topics as I am a major editor in one myself. If anyone was to challenge the good aspect of this article over NPOV I wanted it clear that I had considered it when reviewing. Anyway this article is excellent and deserves to be called a "Good Article". Passing. Congratulations. AIR corn (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)