I don't think this article currently lives up to GA standards. The controversy WP:NPOV: It fails to examine the
1) Deviation from WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. This article is way too long. It goes into way too much detail. It needs to be trimmed
2) It reads like an op-ed. A pretty good op-ed, in fact, but an op-ed nonetheless, which is something Wikipedia articles shouldn't be. Why do I think so? IMO I would attribute this to a widespread misuse of WP:Wikivoice.
- a)Subject-matter experts, regardless of if they are representing the 'mainstream' school of thought, are treated as if they are correct, and that shows in the matter-of-factness of certain statements:
However, the issue is often discussed in the media in terms of feelings and opinions, and prevents full understanding of the history and context of the use of Native American names and images and why their use by sports teams should be eliminated.
Why is this in Wikivoice?
Not all Native Americans totally oppose mascots.
It nearly feels like 'all' should be italicized. Why is this sentence necessary? IMO it indirectly marginalizes the viewpoint of a subject-matter expert in exchange for the opposing/differing opinions of other subject-matter experts.
3) Sentences seemingly thrown in at random:
A National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) database tracks some 1,900 K-12 schools in 970 school districts with Native “themed” school mascots.
Cool, I guess, but is this really leadworthy? Also, MOS:SCAREQUOTES?
The stereotyping of Native Americans must be understood in the context of history which includes conquest, forced relocation, and organized efforts to eradicate native cultures.
There's gotta be a better way to directly incorporate this into the text. This is also another example of the op-ed
MOS:LEADCITE probihits the use of
4) Sentences that, when viewed from an angle, don't really say anything:
Native Americans and their supporters object to the use of images and names in a manner and context they consider derogatory.
This gives the reader no useful information. I object to the use of my image in a way that I consider derogatory, but what do I consider derogatory?
Lack of WP:ATTRIBUTION.
Lack of explanation/clarity.
- Who/what is the NCAI? They are mentioned twice in the lead, but the reader is forced to folllow a link to understand anything about the organization.
Exposure to any stereotypes increased the likelihood of stereotypical thinking; demonstrating the harm done to society by stereotyping of any kind.
This sentence can't stand on its own. In fact, this sentence fails to demonstrate anything, instead opting to state that something has been demonstrated when, in reality, nothing has been demonstrated at all. Simply asserting that stereotypical thinking is harmful without explaining how this theoretical harm came to be, or what the harm even is, doesn't serve the reader at all. (Yes, something is demonstrated in the next sentence, but the sentence refers to itself and not to any future sentence.)
Lack of a distinct criticism section. I mean, it wouldn't really be a 'criticism' section per se, but a major flaw that I see is that
Unlike
Defensive quotes by the many organizations that
IMO, the fundamental issue that ties everything together is the idea that