Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.