Talk:Washington Redskins name controversy/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Article size issues

Major problems regarding WP:SIZE of the article.

These have been raised on the article's talk page by multiple different editors at different points in time:

1. 17 August 2014
2. 15 December 2014
3. 3 October 2015

The opposite has happened. The article has only gotten bigger since then. This is a significant issue. — Cirt (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Two images used in article, I'll do an Image review on them:

1. File:FedExField02.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection of image page there, image review checks out okay.
2. File:Redskins scriptlogo.png = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, upon inspection of image page there, image review checks out okay.

No issues here. — Cirt (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Prior to my stepping in as GA Reviewer the article didn't have much Stability issues going back at least 3 months.
2. As my complaints are primarily with potential failure on WP:SIZE problems of article, I'll set aside the Stability problem and address it in the rest of the review from a WP:LENGTH analysis.
3. NOTE: I'll refrain from editing the article itself further myself. Hopefully others will make a good-faith attempt to successfully address issues recommended during this GA Review.
4. Next, on to rest of the review.
5. I plan to do a point-by-point assessment based upon the GA Criteria, and hopefully place this as GA on Hold.
6. Ideally, then there is a possibility the issues will be addressed in a responsive fashion.
7. I'll place the rest of the GA Review below in due time.

— Cirt (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest of GA Review

• Update: Rest of GA Review = pending. There's some good dialogue ongoing on the article's talk page with helpful recommendations to the GA Nominator by myself, Meatsgains, and Mandruss. I'm going to wait a little while, assume good faith that the GA Nominator will attempt to address those recommendations by these three (3) editors, then post up a point-by-point assessment of the article as a GA Review with respect to the Good Article required quality criteria. At that point in time, I'll most likely place the article as a GA on Hold, and then again allow some time for a further response. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: GA Nominator is making excellent progress so far in responding to requests to trim down size of article. — Cirt (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Size in down 65%. Taking a break to look at the newly created split-offs. Creating Other Redskins sports teams removed a lot from Native American mascot controversy but I also need to remove most of the sports team content from Redskin (slang).FriendlyFred (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Most impressive. Will have to take some time to re-read over again the new state of the article. — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nibbling at the edges, almost down to 100k, my goal. I have to admit to being an old-fashioned (and old) academic writer, in which density and lots of citations are positive things. However, admitting to the need for copy editing to make articles useful to the general public does not alter my opinion on the dumbing-down of public discourse in general, or WP in particular. How can it be otherwise, if WP content is mainly drawn from easily accessible online sources? Being a subject-area expert, which means being able to read dense academic sources and understand them well enough to cite them in articles while retaining a NPOV is not something that any WP admin should take lightly, and I am happy to accept some recognition for my work here.

ps. I have posted something relevant to Talk:Native_American_mascot_controversy#Article_size_and_splitting.

FriendlyFred (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Done for now ~100k.FriendlyFred (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 10, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

1. NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
2. FriendlyFred is to be commended for the attempt to cut down the size of the article = which I determine was a success!
3. Lede sect = ", the full list of which can be found here." = please remove this link, and instead if you can find a secondary source or two that itself aggregates and makes a comment on the total number in opposition.
4. Meatsgains wisely suggested on the talk page a few sects that could be cut down or removed altogether and transitioned or moved to other pages. Some of those sects could still be trimmed at least a teensy weensy bit more. Those you could try looking at include: Protests and 2004 Annenberg survey.
5. Public opinion = suggest trimming each sub-sect a bit more, and then just having a paragraph on each topic, and remove the sub-sub-sect headers.

2. Verifiable?:

1. Consider going through and standardizing with WP:CIT templates.
2. Suggest using archiveurl= and archivedate= to archive hyperlinks for posterity.
3. Not necessary, but just optional to help improve the article -- otherwise, most meticulously and duly cited throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: YES the article is thorough, perhaps too thorough still a tad bit.

4. Neutral point of view?: I especially like the lede sect with regard to neutrality. The 3rd paragraph of the intro sect is excellent. This GA Review should be a strong indicator to cite in the future for those who question the article's neutrality = it is neutral. The GA Nominator has clearly gone out of his way to make sure it is neutral.

5. Stable? Passes here.

6. Images?: Passes here.

#NOTE: Please respond, below entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Lede sect = ", the full list of which can be found here." = please remove this link, and instead if you can find a secondary source or two that itself aggregates and makes a comment on the total number in opposition.
  • This is difficult, since the lists are compiled by advocacy groups and posted on web sites, such as ChangeTheMascot.org. Is this primary or secondary? Since it is a moving target, no one publishes a summary. Most RS are not even that concerned with the Redskins, they are about all NA mascots. Is it OR to compile a list, with sources for each item on the list, and then summarize that list by simply counting how many there? Is the problem the link to the list article, because before the split the lede just said "see below"?
• Some of those sects could still be trimmed at least a teensy weensy bit more. Those you could try looking at include: Protests and 2004 Annenberg survey.
  • Done what I could, but Public opinion is basically the only content that reflects support for the name other than the statements of the owner, staff, and NFL.

• Verifiable?:

• • I will clean up citations as needed.

FriendlyFred (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you can find an article from a reliable secondary source like The Washington Post that gives a number? Even if it's a smaller number, that's okay for the lede intro sect in this article. In the other article, it's okay to summarize that number for that lede, as a higher number, per WP:LEAD. Make sense? — Cirt (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Make sense? Not really... The logic of splitting a topic into separate but interdependent articles falls apart for me if there needs to be duplication of references because the related article cannot be used as support for another article's content. To me, a chain of venerability between linked articles makes sense.

What I have now is a ref to an NCAI report that is 90% the Redskins, but the introduction cited is talking about the total number of opponents to all mascots. The list of opposing tribes and organizations is in an appendix, and has much of the same content as the List article. Fine with me, I just want something that establishes that Native Americans are the prime movers in the controversy and represent a substantial portion of those opposing the name. The next sentence, that specifies the high percentage of the Native American population that is represented by the NCAI alone supports this also. Unfortunately this is arguing against prejudice. There is an assumption that in order to be a slur, a clear majority of all Native Americans must say it is, not just a significant number.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your difficulty, I'm just saying you can't use one Wikipedia article to cite another, even if article 2 is well cited itself. — Cirt (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Passed as GA

FriendlyFred has done a most impressive job here and was quite responsive to feedback and polite during this GA Review. Many many thanks, — Cirt (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)