Talk:Gwendolyn Brooks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 19:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I will review this soon. — The Most Comfortable Chair 19:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I had begun reviewing this when I realized that the article is a long way from meeting criteria 3a, among other minor issues.

For an article on the first African American to receive a Pulitzer Prize, it does not discuss her poetry style and structuring, themes and inspirations, impact of her works in the field, and if she inspired other poets/writers. Nearly half her article talks about her early life, and the other half about her career and family — the part about her career reads somewhat superficial even if it seems to cover most major events in her life. The article also lacks information about what she did after the 1960s, creating a void in her biographical details of about three decades (with one exception), and it seems that her works kept getting published. All in all, it is my understanding that there is a significant amount of content that the article should have on her, especially focusing on analysis and impact of her works, and about her career in general. Since she is a recent poet, it will not be too difficult to find sources for that.

Some sources are not very reliable — Hancock, Bill references this Wikipedia article, for instance. There are also some reference formatting issues, with missing basic parameters and some mix-up of work v. publisher. The "Works" section should be modeled as "Selected works" with inclusion of all her important works, if a complete bibliography would be too long to include. There is also some mild close paraphrasing in a sentence or two that could be resolved using the Earwig's tool.

When working on an article for a GA nomination, it is a good idea to look at current GAs or FAs for structuring ideas and to get a gist of how much content it would require to adequately represent a topic. Emily Dickinson, Philip Larkin, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, for instance have a decent amount of coverage of their careers, poetry analysis, critical reception, and impact. Given the recognition she received, things that are listed in "Honors and legacy", and her significance as an individual, a lot more can and should be mentioned about her life and works.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   While the prose quality is decent and the article covers a good amount of important things that there are to cover pertaining to Brooks' biographical details, the scope of the article is broader than that and it needs significant work that is outside the range of improvements one would be expected to make during a good article review. I am afraid I will have to fail this nomination this time. I am available for more input and to help out in any way that I can. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)