Talk:Redskin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shushugah (talk · contribs) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong potential, several major issues

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

While reviewing the article, I saw several instances where the sources did not match the claims made inside the Wiki text. I boldly removed one case, where the N word was purportedly referenced in the Merriam Webster dictionary in comparing redskin. It wasn't, so I removed it entirely in this edit, but there are other cases I found, where there's a misunderstanding of the sourced text, and missing contextualization. In Redskin#Origins of redskin in English it correctly notes that Goddard considered the 1699 claim to be spurious, only for the next paragraph to claim, that he 'admits it cannot be verified' which is a misinterpretation of the source. Rather, he does provide claims that redskin usage was first used in 1812. Using same source it should be noted earlier that activist Suzan Shown Harjo critiqued Goddard, and using a separate source, should be noted that Sociologist James V. Fenelon considered Goddard's work to be 'poor scholarship' (needs to be clearer which article too). We don't need to determine who's right, but we do need to have a WP:DUE prose that includes all the arguments. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• • While I have added ~50% of the text, I do not remember adding the N-word comparison being attributed to the OED. However, the confusion regrading Goddard's WaPo interview comment (Gugliotta) is not as stated above. Rather than referring to the 1699 letter from the previous section, Goddard is casting doubt on the French translations he relied upon in his own paper, contradicting himself. I have attempted to make this clarification.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• In some cases, a subject expert's blog/oped can be used like with Gyasi Ross, but it's unclear why this Medium article was used, or who the author is.
  • The content regarding Oklahoma has three elements, the popular "humma means red so Oklahoma means red people"; the Choctaw dictionary entry that provide an alternative meaning for humma, and the Medium post tying the two together, without which there would be two definitions with an implied synthesis that one is wrong. Instead, it seemed better to have a citation for the synthesis.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Great care is needed to also not treat all indigenous people as a monolith as evident with terms like "native language" when the example used was Meskwaki language (an example of one of many Indigenous or Native American languages). Similarly, it should be explicitly clear that "si quelques peaux Rouges" was an alleged French transliteration (or as Goddard claims, a total fabrication). Because, it's only later in the bottom of the section that its tangentially noted by Historian Darren Reid of Coventry University states it is difficult for historians to document anything with certainty since Native Americans, as a non-literate society, did not produce the written sources upon which historians rely.
  • Again the above seems to be based upon confusion regrading the 1699 letter debunked by Goddard and his reliance on the letters in French purported to be translation from the Miami-Illinois language.
  • The names of indigenous peoples and languages have been used whenever they have been cited in sources. There is only one use of "native language" in the current text, and that seems unavoidable since it refers to the entire southeastern US.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I know that was a long review, but with proper verification/removal of low quality sourcing, this article has potential to reach GA status. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• • I appreciate the effort, although I proposed this review three months ago, and no longer have the same degree of interest.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I have addressed the issues stated above as best I can, and am awaiting further review.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I have re-written the origin in English section, with clearer attribution to Ive Goddard, and removed superfluous subsection heading.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WriterArtistDC I’m really loving the progress and updates! I had stressful week so didn’t get a proper chance to re-review, but I hope to do that by this weekend and happy to continue working with you to the finish line. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks Shushugah, I must have stopped watching this article while I moved on to other topics, so some errors crept in. I should have given it a more careful read before making the nomination.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

WriterArtistDC I've carefully re-read it and confirmed this is now a Good Article! Thank you for diligently sticking to improving it! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)