Talk:The Heart of a Woman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: one found and fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * In the lead we have: and marries a South African freedom fighter. - but in the plot section we have: In 1961, Angelou meets South African freedom fighter Vusumzi Make. They never marry, but she and Guy move with him, first to London and then to Cairo, Egypt, where she plays "official wife to Make, who had become a political leader in exile". So, which is it?
 * Well, it's both. They were acting like they were married, but technically, they never were; they never went to a judge, priest, or minister to make it official.  But I can see how it could be confusing, so I changed the lead - replaced "married" with "became romantically involved with".  As for the plot section, I do say that she "plays" Make's official wife.  Doesn't that imply that they behaved as if they were married? Christine (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does but I welcome the change in the lead. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Prose is good. I made a couple of minor copy-edits. Accords sufficiently with MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * On-line references check out. I assume good faith for the off-line ones. No sign of OR. Sources appear to be RS.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * My concern is the lack of a Reception section. Although there is plenty of scholarly and critical comment throughout, the article lacks a reception section and publication details as recommended in WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The reception section should contain contemporaneous reviews, etc.  sales figures would be good as well.
 * Duh, of course. Section created.  Thanks for catching the embarrassing oversight on my part. Christine (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Focussed, yes.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was painless. ;) Thanks for the input and review; everything has now been addressed. Christine (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing things, I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was painless. ;) Thanks for the input and review; everything has now been addressed. Christine (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing things, I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)