Talk:Celestine Sibley

Neutrality Issue
While some of the article is a bit subjectively biased toward how great a writer Ms. Sibley was, what specific parts are considered to be a neutrality issue? I've read most of her books, met her in person several times, and would be honored to help round this out. I don't see any factual inaccuracies that I can tell. Mapleleaves 03:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there was much issue. I removed a few complimentary terms and with them the npov tag. Aleta  Sing 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Article missing the main point
the article provides the hint that Sibley had written a bigger bunch of books but fails in describing even the main areas and the way of dealing it in the books. further the reading list is a mangling of own works of the person and third party books. this should be split. event it remains a bit unclear what nature those last mentioned works in the text is or what role Sibley played for it. its further "burried" in the text that Sibley was an eager and acceptedwriter on legal cases. maybe it would even be interesting to sumarize even the areas of her daily works so that a rough categorizing of this aspect is brought to th reader in the beginning. sorry, but the article in its current evolvement stage is not to well serving the informational desires of an ezyclopedic reader by its design. --Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Small change, started the reference list
Changed U.S. House of Representatives to Georgia House of Representatives; added a reference to the relevant bill and started the reference list. ProfMontgomery (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Article reboot
Unfortunately the previous article here was in its entirety an unsalvageable copyright violation, as it was a direct copy of the New Georgia Encyclopedia article. I have deleted it. Obviously a new article should be written without illegally copying other sources. —Kusma (t·c) 20:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)