Talk:Poet Laureate of New Jersey/GA1

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

Reviewer: ТимофейЛееСуда (talk · contribs) 15:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I will begin reviewing this article for inclusion as a Good Article. Please be patient as I know very little about New Jersey or Poet Laureates. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 15:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Review
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Needs minor work. See prose review below.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Almost there. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Almost there. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Almost there. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Prose review

 * In the lead, italicize "New Jersey William Carlos Williams Citation of Merit" in the first sentence, as it is throughout the article.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Establishing the position section, there are two quotes which are basically facts that would be better paraphrased than quoted. The two lines are: 1) "who practiced medicine in his birthplace of Rutherford, New Jersey." and 2) "be considered the poet laureate of the State of New Jersey and receive a $10,000 honorarium."
 * Done - Both of them are direct quotes from the bill or its legislative intent statement, but I do agree paraphrasing would work better. slight rephrasing and removing the quotations. The first is series of general facts and I added two other sources, and the second, since I mention an attribution in text I think it satisfies WP:PARAPHRASE.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph of that section, it starts with the NJ Dept. of State and NJ State Council on the Arts, but later in quote it says the NJ council for the humanities and the NJ State Council on the Arts. Which departments actually administer the selection of the poet?
 * Addressed: I revised that paragraph...that first offending sentence was part my first draft of the article and a sentence I should have noticed but never got around to remove as the article developed. Given the revision, the quote is more important and direct, so I've just removed the offending first sentence.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In that same paragraph, first sentence, who authorized the departments? Is it authorized by law, or authorized by the governor?
 * Addressed: Given the prefacing clause added to the second paragraph in revisions mentioned above, it was authorized per the statute.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the section First poet laureate, the third sentence should be re-written. I recommend: "Stern had been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry in 1991 for his collection Leaving Another Kingdom.
 * Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Appointment of Amiri Baraka section, change Newark to Newark-born. Newark poet is ambiguous.
 * Done - amended to Newark-born.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Critical reception of Baraka's poetry and writing is a conflict of extremes. This sentence does not make any sense. It either needs to be clarified better or simply removed, as the critical reception is discussed in the following sentences.
 * Done - Rephrased that sentence and the two following.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Controversy over... section, it says: "This poem, written in October 2011..." I believe that date is wrong, as it was read in Sept. 2002. Should that say 2001?
 * Done - Yes to 2001. Typo fixed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Question: When Baraka ceased being poet laureate of the state, was he still poet laureate of the Newark Public Schools? If so, when did that end?
 * Reply - I assume so, but like many things that are newsworthy for one day in Newark, I have never heard or been able to find anything after that initial appointment announcement. There hasn't been any other announcements of subsequent Newark public schools poets laureate, so I would assume (a) he was the only one and (b) that he may have been so until his recent death last month. However, since there aren't any sources saying otherwise or mentioning anything further, I don't think I could justify that conjecture per WP:RS to mention such in the article. I'll send an e-mail to the Newark Board of Education and to Baraka's son (who is influential in Newark politics) to find out more and if there is something more I'll add it in to this article and to Amiri Baraka and Newark Public Schools where it's mentioned. That is a good question to follow up on--I don't know if that's enough to keep the GAN "on hold" pending an answer since I can't guarantee I'll get a response or find anything, but know as I aim sometime to bring this to FAC and Peer Review, and keep it up-to-date (since there is an effort starting to resurrect the post), I will keep looking.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely will not stop the article from attaining GA status. I was curious, and wanted some clarification (if you had it). Thank you for your answer. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I did some minor copyediting in this edit. Please verify that I did not mess anything up.
 * Verified - I don't see anything messed up and thank you for those fixes.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That sums up my GA review of the article. I am happy to pass this article to GA status once the preceding items are addressed. If anything does not make sense, or you want clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks, -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда . 23:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for taking up this review and offering the comments above. Sorry for the delay in responding, I was away this past weekend until Monday night and had a few other "to-do" tasks that occupied me yesterday, but I'll satisfy the comments above by the end of the night today (Wednesday). Thank you once again.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries Colonel. The nomination sat for a while without a reviewer until I took it, so you are more than welcome to take as much time as you need. Cheers --  Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  20:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - I think I finished addressing your concerns listed above. Please review them to see if my fixes were satisfactory. Also, do let me know if you see other issues that ought to be addressed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to say that the article now meets GA status. Congratulations on your hard work. -- Тимофей  Лее  Суда .  23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)