A fact from Poet Laureate of New Jersey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 February 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 15:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In that same paragraph, first sentence, who authorized the departments? Is it authorized by law, or authorized by the governor?
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.
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.
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?
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)[reply]
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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did some minor copyediting in this edit. Please verify that I did not mess anything up.
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, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ТимофейЛееСуда: - 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)[reply]
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 -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ТимофейЛееСуда: - 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)[reply]
