As an adopter I have to say that there is a lot of truth to the article. These kids DO come from some pretty terrible backgrounds and the current guidance is to tell them about their background at age appropriate times. The whole adoption process is very stressful. You just can't imagine it if you haven't gone through it yourself. There are many roads that lead to adoption and for the most part we all want a "normal" family because we can't have one any other way. This is why children may get rejected for their looks or their name.
Adoptive families don't want to stand out. How can you explain away a very ginger child when there is no sign of it in the parents? How do you counteract the looks when a nice middle class family tells people that their child is named "Chardonnay"? It's just wanting to be normal and fly under the radar.
Fortunately our child has a very nice name that sounds good with our surname. Would we have rejected him if he had a ridiculous name? It's hard to say, but it would have been a big check in the "no" column. A name can be everything. Look at all the stress people have naming a birth child. It can be a HUGE deal. Disliking a name does not make someone unsuitable to adopt. It just means they may have to wait longer. Our social workers advised that names should not be changed unless they are unique or a security risk. One couple we know DID change their child's name because he is very recognisable and the birth parents are dangerous.
At the time of the final adoption proceeding you could change the name and I doubt anyone would be able to stop you. You'd just have to deal with any potential fallout from the child in years to come. We heard from an adult adoptee that fell out majorly with their family when they found out their name had been changed at adoption.
As far as knowing about the background of the child, we know everything and are happy to know it. What we share in the future with our child remains to be seen.