User:Gkhaner/sandbox

Final Draft of contributions to Wikipedia article on "What the Constitution Means to Me"
** note: citations did not transfer over to this draft. I will add them in to the final article when I go live with it. Citations are included in the "Draft One" section below for any sentence that seems to be missing one in this draft.

Lead
(edits are denoted in bold--Edits mostly focus on making this section better reflect the article's content.)

Current Wikipedia Text:

What the Constitution Means to Me is a 2017 American play by Heidi Schreck. The play was a finalist for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

My Draft:

What the Constitution Means to Me is a 2017 American play written by Heidi Schreck. The play premiered on Broadway on March 31, 2019 at the Hayes Theater, with Schreck herself in the leading role. Over the course of the play, Schreck addresses themes such as women's rights, immigration, and domestic abuse. Schreck varies the time period in which the play takes place, performing some scenes as her modern self and others as her fifteen-year-old self participating in Constitutional debate contests. What the Constitution Means to Me has received accolades such as a nomination for Best Play in the 73rd Tony Awards and a finalist spot for the 2019 Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

Overview[edit]
Current Wikipedia Text:

Heidi Schreck takes the audience back to her time as a 15 year old Constitutional debater. At 15, young Heidi is fascinated by the document and all the freedom that it gives to Americans. Throughout her speech as a 15 year old, flashes of her current self and her realizations about the document are shown. She draws connections to the domestic violence faced by women in her family, she tackles abortion and immigration. She eventually "transforms" back into her current self, and continues to explain the problems with the United States Constitution; mainly, she argues that the Constitution doesn't protect all Americans because it was not created to protect all Americans, just wealthy white men. Midway through this part of the play, Mike Iveson shares his experience in regards to his sexuality. At the end of the show, Heidi and a teenage debater argue about whether the current Constitution should be kept or abolished.

My Current Draft:

(additions/edits are denoted in bold--I mostly focused on creating a more comprehensive overview of both the plot and the major themes addressed in the play in this section, as well as providing facts that I could provide citations for.)

'''Throughout the play, Heidi Schreck communicates her story to the audience through the lens of both herself in the present and of her fifteen-year-old self as a Constitutional debater in 1989. Schreck talks about multiple facets of the Constitution throughout the play, but a discourse about the Ninth Amendment—which Schreck refers to as the “penumbra” of the Constitution—is central to the show. She also includes a deep dive into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which discusses citizenship rights and what it means to be "American". Over the course of the play, Schreck also addresses themes of sexual assault, domestic abuse, and immigration as they relate to the women in her family and to herself. Schreck highlights what she sees as the pitfalls of the Constitution;''' mainly, she argues that the Constitution doesn't protect all Americans because it was not created to protect all Americans, just wealthy white men. During this part of the play, Mike Iveson moves out of his role of the WWII veteran who attends competitions with young Schreck into his true self, and shares his experience in regards to his sexuality and experience with the topic of masculinity. The play ends with a dialogue, moderated by Iveson, in which Schreck engages with a local high school debater on whether or not the U.S. Constitution should be abolished.The audience plays the role of the jury in this debate, with one audience member being selected to deliver a final verdict.

Productions[edit]
(edits are denoted in bold--Edits mostly focus on improving the wording and readability of this section.)

What the Constitution Means to Me was first produced at the Wild Project, in Summerworks, Clubbed Thumb's (New York City) festival for new plays in June to July 2017 in a co-production with True Love Productions. Schreck was contractedby True Love Productions in their new play commissioning program, writing What the Constitution Means to Me for her submission.

The play was presented at Berkeley Repertory Theatre, California, from May 3, 2018 to June 17, 2018. Schreck starred, with Danny Wolohan as the moderator "Danny", and direction by Oliver Butler.

An Off-Broadway production of the play premiered at the New York Theatre Workshop on September 12, 2018 and closed there on November 4, 2018 (in an extension of one week), before moving to the Greenwich House on November 27, 2018 where it closed on December 30, 2018. The play was again directed by Oliver Butler, and the cast featured Heidi Schreck, along with Mike Iveson as the moderator, and Rosdely Ciprian, and Thursday Williams as the play’s featured high school debaters.

A limited Broadway run of the play began on March 14, 2019 in previews at the Hayes Theatre, with the official premiereMarch 31. The run wasextended to July 21, 2019. Directed again by Oliver Butler, the cast features many returning cast members, such as Heidi Schreck, Mike Iveson, Rosdely Ciprian, Thursday Williams, and Ben Beckley. The production’s Broadway run was again extended in April 2019 to a final closing date of August 24, 2019.

A limited engagement of the play, starring Schreck, took place at Washington D.C.’s Kennedy Center(Eisenhower Theater) from September 11, 2019 to September 22, 2019.

The play will run at the Mark Taper Forum, Los Angeles, from January 12, 2020 to February 16, 2020, and then at Chicago's Broadway Playhouse March 4, 2020 to April 12, 2020. The play is then expected to tour in the US in cities such as Charlotte, Hartford, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and othersto be announced. This tour will featurea new leading lady, taking the starring role that Schreck has performed. Maria Dizzia will star in the Los Angeles and Chicago venues.

Creation[edit]
(this section is entirely new and all content is original--Here, I wanted to talk about the genesis of the play and how Schreck developed it out of a motivation to address political issues in a way that would stick with audience members.)

In an interview with New York Times journalist Alexis Soloski, Schreck notes that she first through about generating a play like “What the Constitution Means to Me” over two decades ago. The first iteration of the play came in the form of a short 10-minute presentation that Schreck would perform at benefit nights nearly ten years after her initial idea for the show.Although the premise of the play is based on Schreck’s own life, she says that she did not initially set out to write a role for her to play. Instead, Schreck’s motives for writing the play include getting Americans to consider contemporary judicial issues through the lens of the Constitution itself, and to provide a grounds for conversation of those issues facing women today. When asked about the concept of victimhood in her play, Schreck notes, “…stories hold our cure.”  Although the play seems to be improvised to a certain degree, Schreck sticks heavily to the letter of her script, adapting occasionally to integrate the most relevant contemporary references.

Context[edit]
(this section is entirely new and all content is original--In this section, I wanted to provide important context for the play, as the play definitely does not exist in a vacuum and serves to make the audience think about the world in which they live more deeply.)

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh[edit]
The play’s discussion of women’s rights has been especially pertinent to audiences in light of recent hearings to appoint Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In an article for the New York Times, Ben Brantley writes:

“Ms. Schreck’s show…never mentions Mr. Kavanaugh by name. But his invisible judiciary presence is there, affirming many of her implicit arguments, which are often indistinguishable from her deepest fears about a document with which she has had a long and complicated relationship.”

The content of the play is implicitly shaped by the state of the nation in which it lives; Schreck notes that the audience voted in favor of abolishing the constitution much more frequently while the Kavanaugh trial was occurring.

Women's Equality[edit]
Schreck’s play also brings to light themes of women’s equality and reproductive justice. Over the course of the show Schreck discusses her own experience in getting an abortion when she was in her 20s, and a sexual assault she experienced during college. She also addresses the abuse of her mother by her stepfather and of her grandmother, Bette, by her husband.In addition, the story of Schreck’s great-grandmother, who was sent away from her home to wed her future husband in Washington, is included in the context of her eventual admittance into a mental hospital “melancholia” and death at the age of 36. Laura Collins-Hughes notes in her article, “Enraged by their Times, Women of Ambition Seize the Stage” that a discussion of the right of a woman to control her own body and life is lacking both from the Constitution itself and  current political discourse. Specifically, Collins-Hughes notes degree to which Schreck’s play highlights the current state of the fight for women’s equality in America, and emphasizes that there is still much to do.

Immigration[edit]
The play addresses themes of immigration as they relate to the history of Schreck’s family, including a discussion of how Schreck’s grandmother came to the U.S. after being purchased from a magazine by her future husband. The idea of being a “good immigrant” is also noted throughout the play; critics have noted the importance of this theme in parallel to Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.

Critical Response
(edits are denoted in bold--Edits focused on providing more perspectives on the play from acclaimed critics.)

In reviewing the 2018 Off-Broadway production, Thom Geier of The Wrap wrote: "Schreck is an engaging storyteller with a delivery that seems improvised even when she is sticking to her winding but always-focused script. Again and again, she manages to imbue her exploration of the politics of constitutional rights from the lens of the personal. And of the individuals left out as Americans saw their rights expand."

'Critic Sara Holdren writes in New York Magazine that What the Constitution Means to Me'' is a "...brilliantly crafted show, harrowing and funny and humane, that accesses the political through the deeply personal." '''

'Ben Brantley of The New York Times'' noted, "More artistic choice could have been taken in the production of the play; but the whirlwind, all-in-one-breath nature of the play echoes the feeling of desperation that permeates Schreck's storylines." '''

Overview
Current Wikipedia Text:

Heidi Schreck takes the audience back to her time as a 15 year old Constitutional debater. At 15, young Heidi is fascinated by the document and all the freedom that it gives to Americans. Throughout her speech as a 15 year old, flashes of her current self and her realizations about the document are shown. She draws connections to the domestic violence faced by women in her family, she tackles abortion and immigration. She eventually "transforms" back into her current self, and continues to explain the problems with the United States Constitution; mainly, she argues that the Constitution doesn't protect all Americans because it was not created to protect all Americans, just wealthy white men. Partway through this part of the play, Mike Iveson shares his experience in regards to his sexuality. At the end of the show, Heidi and a teenage debater argue about whether the current Constitution should be kept or abolished.

My Current Draft:

(additions/edits are denoted in bold--I mostly focused on creating a more comprehensive overview of both the plot and the major themes addressed in the play in this section, as well as providing facts that I could provide citations for.)

'''Throughout the play, Heidi Schreck communicates her story to the audience through the lens of both herself in the present and of her fifteen-year-old self as a Constitutional debater in 1989. Schreck discusses multiple facets of the Constitution throughout the play, but a discussion of the Ninth Amendment—which Schreck refers to as the “penumbra” of the Constitution—is central to the show. She also includes a deep dive into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, a section that discusses citizenship rights and what it means to be "American". Over the course of the play, Schreck discusses themes of sexual assault, domestic abuse, and immigration as they relate to the women in her family and to herself. Schreck discusses what she sees as the pitfalls of the Constitution; mainly, she argues that the Constitution doesn't protect all Americans because it was not created to protect all Americans, just wealthy white men. During this part of the play, Mike Iveson moves out of his role of the WWII veteran who attends competitions with young Schreck into his true self, and shares his experience in regards to his sexuality and experience with the topic of masculinity. The play ends with a dialogue, moderated by Iveson, in which Schreck engages with a local high school debater on whether or not the U.S. Constitution should be abolished. The audience plays the role of the jury in this debate, with one audience member being selected to deliver a final verdict. '''

Productions
(edits are denoted in bold--Edits mostly focus on improving the wording and readability of this section.)

What the Constitution Means to Me was first produced at the Wild Project, in Summerworks, Clubbed Thumb's (New York City) festival for new plays in June to July 2017 in a co-production with True Love Productions. Schreck was contracted by True Love Productions in their new play commissioning program, writing What the Constitution Means to Me for her submission.

The play was presented at Berkeley Repertory Theatre, California, from May 3, 2018 to June 17, 2018. Schreck starred, with Danny Wolohan as the moderator "Danny", and direction by Oliver Butler.

An Off-Broadway production of the play premiered at the New York Theatre Workshop on September 12, 2018 and closed there on November 4, 2018 (in an extension of one week), before moving to the Greenwich House on November 27, 2018 where it closed on December 30, 2018. The play was again directed by Oliver Butler, and the cast featured Heidi Schreck, along with Mike Iveson as the moderator, and Rosdely Ciprian, and Thursday Williams as the play’s featured high school debaters.

A limited Broadway run of the play began on March 14, 2019 in previews at the Hayes Theatre, with the official premiere March 31. The run wasextended to July 21, 2019. Directed again by Oliver Butler, the cast features many returning cast members, such as Heidi Schreck, Mike Iveson, Rosdely Ciprian, Thursday Williams, and Ben Beckley. The production’s Broadway run was again extended in April 2019 to a final closing date of August 24, 2019.

A limited engagement of the play, starring Schreck, took place at Washington D.C.’s Kennedy Center(Eisenhower Theater) from September 11, 2019 to September 22, 2019.

The play will run at the Mark Taper Forum, Los Angeles, from January 12, 2020 to February 16, 2020, and then at Chicago's Broadway Playhouse March 4, 2020 to April 12, 2020. The play is then expected to tour in the US in cities such as Charlotte, Hartford, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and othersto be announced. This tour will featurea new leading lady, taking the starring role that Schreck has performed. Maria Dizzia will star in the Los Angeles and Chicago venues.

Creation
(this section is entirely new and all content is original--Here, I wanted to talk about the genesis of the play and how Schreck developed it out of a motivation to address political issues in a way that would stick with audience members.)

In an interview with New York Times journalist Alexis Soloski, Schreck notes that she first through about generating a play like “What the Constitution Means to Me” over two decades ago. The first iteration of the play came in the form of a short 10-minute presentation that Schreck would perform at benefit nights nearly ten years after her initial idea for the show. Although the premise of the play is based on Schreck’s own life, she says that she did not initially set out to write a role for her to play. Instead, Schreck’s motives for writing the play include getting Americans to consider contemporary judicial issues through the lens of the Constitution itself, and to provide a grounds for conversation of those issues facing women today. When asked about the concept of victimhood in her play, Schreck notes, “…stories hold our cure.” Although the play seems to be improvised to a certain degree, Schreck sticks heavily to the letter of her script, adapting occasionally to integrate the most relevant contemporary references.

Context
(this section is entirely new and all content is original--In this section, I wanted to provide important context for the play, as the play definitely does not exist in a vacuum and serves to make the audience think about the world in which they live more deeply.)

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The play’s discussion of women’s rights has been especially pertinent to audiences in light of recent hearings to appoint Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In an article for the New York Times, Ben Brantley writes:

“Ms. Schreck’s show…never mentions Mr. Kavanaugh by name. But his invisible judiciary presence is there, affirming many of her implicit arguments, which are often indistinguishable from her deepest fears about a document with which she has had a long and complicated relationship.”

The content of the play is implicitly shaped by the state of the nation in which it lives; Schreck notes that the percentage of votes in favor of abolishing the constitution during the Kavanaugh hearings rose dramatically during the time of his trial.

Women's Equality
Schreck’s play also brings to light themes of women’s equality and reproductive justice. Over the course of the show Schreck discusses her own experience in getting an abortion when she was in her 20s, and a sexual assault she experienced during college. She also addresses the abuse of her mother by her stepfather and of her grandmother, Bette, by her husband. In addition, the story of Schreck’s great-grandmother, who was sent away from her home to wed her future husband in Washington, is included in the context of her eventual admittance into a mental hospital “melancholia” and death at the age of 36. Laura Collins-Hughes notes in her article, “Enraged by their Times, Women of Ambition Seize the Stage” that a discussion of the right of a woman to control her own body and life is lacking both from the Constitution itself and  current political discourse. Specifically, Collins-Hughes notes degree to which Schreck’s play highlights the current state of the fight for women’s equality in America, and emphasizes that there is still much to do.

Immigration
The play addresses themes of immigration as they relate to the history of Schreck’s family, including a discussion of how Schreck’s grandmother came to the U.S. after being purchased from a magazine by her future husband. The idea of being a “good immigrant” is also noted throughout the play; critics have noted the importance of this theme in parallel to Donald Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.

Works Cited (as of 11/26)
Brantley, Ben. "Working on a More Perfect Union." New York Times 168.58103 (2018): C2. Web.

Clement, Olivia. "Tony-Nominated 'What the Constitution Means to Me' Extends Again on Broadway" Playbill, April 30, 2019

Clement, Olivia. "What the Constitution Means to Me Extends on Broadway" Playbill, March 31, 2019

Clement, Olivia. "What the Constitution Means to Me Extends Again at New York Theatre Workshop" Playbill, October 17, 201

Collins-Hughes, Laura. "Enraged by Their Times, Women of Ambition Seize the Stage." 2018. Web. US Newsstream. < https://search.proquest.com/docview/2118303253?accountid=11091 (Links to an external site.)>.

"Commissions" trueloveproductions.com, Retrieved April 4, 2019

Hetrick, Adam. " 'What the Constitution Means to Me' to Launch National Tour" Playbill, June 3, 2019

Hetrick, Adam. "Heidi Schreck’s Tony-Nominated 'What the Constitution Means to Me' Announced for Mark Taper Season" Playbill, May 2, 2019

Holdren, Sara. "It's Not just Rhetoric: What the Constitution Means to Me Charts a Way Forward for Politicized Theater." New York 51.21 (2018): 142-6. Web.

Holdren, Sara. "What what the Constitution Means to Me Means to Them." New York 52.5 (2019): 96-100. Web.

Janiak, Lily. "At Berkeley Rep, Constitution is ‘steamy,’ but ‘Constitution’ is hazy" San Francisco Chronicle, May 12, 2018

Larson, Sarah (2017-06-26). "In Heidi Schreck's New Play, Teen Girls Talk About the Constitution". ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 2019-11-21.

Lyon, Shauna. "What the Constitution Means to Me." New Yorker 95.21 (2019): 18. Web.

Marks, Peter. "Seeing Broadway’s ‘What the Constitution Means to Me’ feels like a patriotic act. Here’s why.: It’s the perfect moment for a play about the legal document, and Heidi Schreck is the perfect interpreter." 2019. Web. US Newsstream. < https://search.proquest.com/docview/2200521348?accountid=11091 (Links to an external site.)>.

Meyer, Dan. "Tony Nominee Maria Dizzia to Star in What the Constitution Means to Me in L.A. and Chicago" Playbill, October 15, 2019

McGuinness, Max. "Falling Out of Love with the US Constitution: Playwright Heidi Schreck." FT.com (2019): n/a. International Newsstream. Web.

McNulty, Charles. "Review: Unconventional ‘What the Constitution Means to Me’ supremely argues the case for women." 2019. Web. US Newsstream. < https://search.proquest.com/docview/2200796919?accountid=11091 (Links to an external site.)>.

McPhee, Ryan. "Heidi Schreck to Bring 'What the Constitution Means to Me' to Washington, D.C., After Broadway Bow" Playbill, June 20, 2019

"Productions Summerworks 2017". Clubbed Thumb. Retrieved April 3, 2019.

Soloski, Alexis. "Heidi Schreck's Patriotic Dissent." New York Times 168.58421 (2019): C18. Web.

Soloski, Alexis. "Thirty Years Later, A Few Amendments." Gale in Context: Biography. Feb 24, 2019. Web. Nov 14, 2019 < https://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A575489450/BIC?sid=lms (Links to an external site.)>.

"What the Constitution Means to Me" nytw.org, Retrieved March 31, 2019

What the Constitution Means to Me Off-Broadway" lortel.org, Retrieved April 1, 2019

What the Constitution Means to Me Off-Broadway" theatermania.com, Retrieved April 1, 2019

What the Constitution Means to Me berkeleyrep.org, accessed April 2, 2019

Three-Part Evaluation of The Handmaid's Tale
General observation: Elements in the "The Handmaid's Tale" Article are misplaced between sections and certain information is missing from the "Genre Classification" section.

Concrete Point of Evaluation: The "Genre Classification" section does not contain any discussion of Atwood's other works, despite the Wikipedia template for articles about books indicating that such discussion belongs there. Actionable Item: Find a source that includes information about subsequent The Handmaid's Tale sequels and other books and short stories by Atwood, possibly from a biography of Atwood or feature story from a Library on her literature.

Note: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-Atwood is an encyclopedia source that includes discussion of Atwood in biography form and information about her subsequent works.

Comparison of The Handmaid's Tale and Fun Home Articles
The most striking difference between the two articles listed above is the structure of each of them. While the Fun Home article has a Lead section that accurately describes the content of the article, The Handmaid's Tale article does not. However, the Lead section is lengthy, and specifically includes excess material on the musical adaptation of the novel that might be better placed in an adjunct article about the musical itself. The body of the Fun Home article is then broken up into sections for the plot visuals in the text, public reception, and external projects, such as the musical adaptation. Certain elements within the plot section–namely the sections for "themes" and "allusions" might be better served in their own section, possibly entitled "Literary Analysis." Notably, the "Publication and reception" section is long as well and could be broken into separate sections; for example, one section on "Publication" and then another on the challenges the book has faced and its presence on banned books lists.

Evaluation of The Handmaid's Tale Article
Lead Section

I think that the The Handmaid's Tale article does a good job at summarizing the major plot points of the book, but does not necessarily describe the book as a whole in terms of its exigence and place in the greater world of literature. The Lead section does summarize what is addressed in the article, but does not include much discussion of the characters or setting of the novel, which is a topic that the article gives a great deal of attention to.

Background

There is no one background section in this article. There is little attention paid to the role of the novel in literature, except for some discussion of the topic in the "Genre Classification" section. Literary criticism and analysis, such as that of Ben Merriman in his article "White-washing oppression in Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale" could be featured in this section (or in a "Reception" section) to address how the novel does or does not portray themes relevant to its literary atmosphere, particularly relating to "white feminism" and systematic oppression. In addition, a discussion of where the book is most often discussed is warranted. Being a text used largely in educational settings, it is important to address both the exigence of the text and the reasons it has been selected for analysis in schools. In addition, the article does not include discussion of the way in which the makeup of Gilead may be meant to parallel that of a "whitewashed" American dystopia. Lauren A. Rule points out in her article, "Not Fading into Another Landscape," that Atwood employs "naturalizing rhetoric" that can suggest the way in which certain social groups are wholly written out of the storyline of The Handmaid's Tale, and how that glossing over mirrors the treatment of ethnic minorities––specifically indigenous peoples––in the U.S. and Canada. In addition, Rule's argument highlights the way in which women's bodies are treated as simply 'part of the landscape' in Gilead, and not as individuals.

Summary

There is a plot summary present in the first section of the article. The summary does a good job at addressing the major plot points of the novel while remaining fluid and readable. Though shorter than many other summary sections of Wikipedia pages for novels, the summary includes mention of the turning points in Offred's arc, including discussion of the growth of Gilead as a whole and the role Offred plays in its structure. The plot summary does not give a great deal of attention to the storylines of more minor characters, but rather expresses smaller points about them through the ways that they are involved in Offred's life.

Genre

The "Genre Classification" section does give some information about Atwood's choice to denote the book as "speculative fiction" and the realistic undertones she sees in every element of the novel. The article discusses the roots for Atwood's literary choices with information that might better be included in the "Background" section. Discussion of Atwood's other literature is not included in this section.

Analysis

Though analyses of major characters and events in the book are included throughout each section, there is no one "Analysis" section that addresses the themes of the novel as a whole. With the novel being so deeply entrenched in themes of oppression, slavery, and feminism, I think that an overarching analysis section would serve any audience of the book or of the article very well.

Publication

While some information about publication is provided in the article's "Infobox," there is no formal discussion of the multiple editions of the novel that have been published.

Others

"Setting"

In addition, the "Setting" section is very long and a bit disjointed. I understand the necessity of explaining the intricacies of the world of "Gilead" to a reader of this page, but the sheer length and detail of the section makes it seem as if these points are more important than an examination of the themes of the book as a whole. Instead, details of the world of Gilead are given in a "Setting" section that attempts to address a myriad of facts about the nation and the greater society in which Gilead sits. Because so many topics are addressed at once, the Setting section fails to construct a cohesive picture of the story's world.

"Reception"

*** did not finish***

10/8/19
Evaluating Native American mascot laws and regulations

The article is relevant to the article topic, as the discussion focuses mainly on the mascots that exist that are meant to depict Native Americans and the legislation surrounding their existence. The article is structured as an anthology of how each state deals with the implications of challenged logos, with a particular emphasis on the legislation surrounding logo usage in public schools. Though the article sufficiently addresses mascot concerns at the elementary, middle, and high school levels, the title "Native American mascot laws and regulations" is a bit of a misnomer, as there is little attention to mascot disputes outside of schools in the article.

The majority of the lead section does not address the article's content. Though a short portion at the end of the lead does summarize the bulk of the article in detailing the ways in which logos with Native imagery are portrayed and interpreted, there is information in the lead that is not relevant to the rest of the content presented. For instance, the professional sports teams named early in the lead are not referenced later in the article, nor are any professional team mascots at all. Institutions such as the APA and themes of cultural appropriation are also mentioned in the lead, but are not explored in depth in the body of the article.

The tone of the article is neutral; the text does a good job at providing facts in context with arguments and counterarguments for each one. Though the article is written to highlight criticisms of certain logos, there does not appear to be a significant bias present. The article even acknowledges instances in which logos have been developed but not completely repealed, even when potentially offensive imagery still remains.

Information throughout the article is cited properly and frequently, and facts are sourced largely from local news sites and public records. The article does not use many signal phrases.

There are no discussions currently happening on the article's "Talk" page. The article does, however, have a "C-class" quality rating and a "Low importance" importance rating. The article is also part of three WikiProjects: "WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of North America," "WikiProject Discrimination," and "WikiProject Law." Overall, this article provides a fact-based examination of Native imagery in team mascots in the U.S. and the legislation surrounding their use, but does not address the nuanced themes and opinions on the topic that we have begun to speak about in class.