User:Hugofabian97/sandbox

Every fact is not referenced to its source. The last paragraph of the introduction lacks a citation altogether. The third paragraph is very long and the reference provided seems to only apply to the last point made in that paragraph. Most claims in the article are backed up with appropriate references. However, not all of them are.

The introduction could be written more concisely. It focuses a lot on the difference between ”ethnicity” and ”race.” This can, of course, be discussed in the article, but I’m not sure it needs five long sentences in the introduction.

The article is very long, and isn’t very coherent. This article could be divided up into a few different articles as its subject is vast. The article goes on a lot of tangents, trying to provide all the information possible on this very broad subject. Many paragraphs could be written more concisely, especially those that already have a link below the headline to a broader article of the subject. For example, the part about scientific racism could be summarized more concisely, since it links to another very long article on Wikipedia, ”Scientific Racism.” The history of racism could be made its own article on Wikipedia.

The article doesn’t have diverse enough sources. It focuses on representing racism from a white and Western point of view. More diverse sources would improve the article by a lot.

There are instances of close paraphrasing. In the last sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction, the writer cited their source correctly, but copied the text almost word for word from their source (reference #4).