Talk:African-American culture/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I shall be reassessing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its listing at Good articles/Cleanup listing

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I made a few copy edits, the prose is generally good, but another look to integrate various additions made since the GAN review would be good.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I repaired 17 and tagged 3 dead links using WP:CHECKLINKS
 * There are a number of citation needed tags from Nov 2008, May 2009, Oct 2009, Nov 2009. These need addressing.
 * Book pages need to be in citations, this is not always the case at present. There are also inconsistent citations, with some works not having publisher or publication date details. Suggest using a works cited section for material which is used more than once, further information on this at WP:CITESHORT
 * ref #67 is a login for Havard university, so is not suitable.  If it is a journal article then it may be cited in a different manner.
 * citations to findarticles or similar subscription archives should have |format=Fee required in the cite to alerts readers to this fact
 * I placed some citation need tags where I feel further attribution is needed.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I feel some sections, such as Hair, really contain too much detail, especially when compared to Literature
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Some vandalism, but no disputes that I can determine.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images all fine
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are a number of referencing issues to be addressed. This is an interesting article. I feel there is at times too much information, see my comments on Hair, above. Some uncited paragraphs may represent original research or a point of view if not attributed. On hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still outstanding issues: one dead link; citation needed tags (some date back to November 2008); the Hair section is still too long; some book cites still lack page numbers; a weasel word tag on the statements about patriarchal society. I am de-listing this, will reclassify as C, as projects need to assess as B.  If you disagree with my decision, please take this to WP:GAR for community re-assessment, otherwise when issues have been addressed, please re-nominate at WP:GAN. It might be a good step to ask for a WP:Peer review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are still outstanding issues: one dead link; citation needed tags (some date back to November 2008); the Hair section is still too long; some book cites still lack page numbers; a weasel word tag on the statements about patriarchal society. I am de-listing this, will reclassify as C, as projects need to assess as B.  If you disagree with my decision, please take this to WP:GAR for community re-assessment, otherwise when issues have been addressed, please re-nominate at WP:GAN. It might be a good step to ask for a WP:Peer review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking the article over, but I think you have a point about the hair section-- there should be a link to a sub article. I'm quite happy to see so much information there, so I'll see about moving some of the information to a better place. futurebird (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the info staying, but myself question why so much space is devoted to hair- about 50 lines, versus 12 for literature. Carambolas (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we find a way of summarizing that section more succinctly? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What does the patriarchal society have to do with AA family structure, and exactly how do attitudes towards gender roles weaken AA families?
This point needs clarification in the article. Is it the patriarchal society that is the cause of the weakened AA family structure? If so, why was said structure stronger in the 1940, 50s and early 60s before the flowering of the women's movement and feminism, and the subsequent weakening of patriarchy? And if as the article seems to suggest poverty is a cause, what was the effect of the late 1960s War on Poverty on AA family structures? A number of writers suggest that the WOP had quite a deleterious effect on AA family structures. This is a controversial area. Recommend that the specific line about patriarchy be left out altogether. Carambolas (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Excludes African-American theater and actors/actresses
The article needs a section on AA theater, playwrights and the acting community. There were some actors who gained renown in the 19th century, and companies were formed then; and there has been more development since the 20th century. Ira Aldridge was a Shakespearean actor who emigrated to England, where he found great success, and was also well-received on the Continent. There's an article on Blackface, but not an overview of theatre.Parkwells (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)