Talk:Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance

Untitled
Article is written from a non-neutral point of view, with promotional or self-congratulatory intent; much hyperbole and non-notable information.

Information and Presentation Appropriate
After the Civil Rights Movements of the mid-1900s, the Harlem Renaissance is the second most studied period in African-American history and reference works about this period are scrutinized from many different angles. This gives students a multi-faceted context to help them learn more about the period itself, better understand current research about it, and document for future reference ongoing work in the field. The article on Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance was created with substantial input from educators who thought its structure and tone appropriately and factually reflect the subject era. It also provides fully relevant information on a title and authors who represent major contributors to what has come to be called the second contemporary Harlem Renaissance. The terms “self-congratulatory” along with “hyperbole” and “non-notable” seem inapplicable in this instance, particularly from the perspective of those who have much use for the information provided here and elsewhere in regard to this topic. Ode2scribblers 16:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ode2scribblers (talk • contribs)
 * The bias has been removed. I don't doubt what you claim about the article. However, its style before my edit was totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article; see Wiki: NPOV. Wikipedia never says anything is groundbreaking, or the most-studied, or celebrated, and so on. People say those things, and wikipedia merely reports it objectively. If educators and scholars contributed to the opinions of this article then they must be cited directly in the prose, and praise for the encyclopedia or the Renaissance must be put in their mouths. theBOBbobato (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)