> I found a good one
You did indeed. It resolutely fails the fundamental criterion: to adequately describe the subject at hand. After reading this, all you come away with is that it has something to do with "genealogy". Racial aspects, ie, Blackness, are suggested only in the most tangential ways: African-American actors, "African or African sounding names". If you have the misfortune to be born after +/-1970, this article is essentially meaningless.
> Even more bizarre is a sentence mentioning Ayn
> Rand's thoughts on the mini-series, which was appended to a paragraph
> about the production of the miniseries.
Let's take a look:
"Ayn Rand praised the series portrayal of heroism, but argued against what she saw as implicit racism on the part of Alex Haley."
Oh gawd. How can you "argue against" a noun? So typical of the constipated prose style with which Wikipedia is rife.
C- is a generous grade. I'd give it an F.
OK, my turn. Here is one for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Ervin
At least it is better than it was last summer, when I made a point to edit it -- but never did: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Ervin&diff=40527418&oldid=17905519
Typical product of the fly-by editing I spoke of earlier.
--
Colin Brace
Amsterdam