Talk:Gwendolyn Brooks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please use the talk page for expressing comments and questions on an article, or to debate information contained within. It is not for you to say your opinion about a particular person or thing. --Arthus 01:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Gwendolyn Brooks[edit]

http://www.zphib1920.org/heritage/notable_zetas.html

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=7762&page=3&highlight=brooks

How many Guggenheim Fellowships has she recieved?[edit]

~ 69.148.174.162 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gwendolyn brooks[edit]

why gwendolyn brooks encycleopedia does not have an infobox with the date of birth,and the place where she was born,and the date of death,and the place of death,added with how old she was

gwendolyn brooks[edit]

why gwendolyn brooks encycleopedia does not have an infobox with the date of birth,and the place where she was born,and the date of death,and the place of death,added with how old she was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.158.190 (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gwendolyn brooks[edit]

when y'all was printing encycleopedias,why did y'all forgot to put and infomation box on gwendolyn brooksʔ when y'all get ready,can you put an infomation box on gwendolyn brooks ʔ when y'all put the infomation box on gwendolyn brooks,can y'all put when and where she was born and when and when she diedʔ here's an example; born= june 7,1917 topekka,kanas [united states] died= december 3,2000 chicago,illinois[aged 83] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.120.227 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 year old poetry genius!!!! (apparently)[edit]

It says in the info box that she was born on 1917, yet her writing period began in 1917. That can't be right. Are you sure she started writing poems at 3 years old? It doesn't seem to make sense, but I guess it could happen.99.54.173.160 (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.65.226 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

This reads like an essay (and quite a good one, actually). But it needs references. Is it mostly derived from a single source, or WP:OR, or compiled from WP:RS but the refs not added? DavidOaks (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt[edit]

Why exactly is this section here? Am I wrong in thinking that it is a little out-of-the-ordinary, and somewhat jarring? If it is worthy of being a section unto itself (or included in the way that it is) it should at the very least be expanded with a couple more lines from the poem and some more context. Frankly, though, it seems like unless the excerpt is necessary in reference to something else it's fairly extraneous. Someone that wants an example of her poetry need merely go to an external source - it's not as though "We Real Cool" is hard to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.81.91.112 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either, and the use of the quote box seems inappropriate here—aren't those designed for sidebars and such? If we're going to have an excerpt, it should one (or more) of her most well-known pieces, with a discussion of how that quote exemplifies her style. For now, though, I'm okay with simply removing the entire section. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "children's life box"?[edit]

74.96.36.168 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- that was some vandalism from a few months back that never got caught. Thanks for pointing it out! Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay College?[edit]

When I google "Clay College of New York", the only hits I get are to biographies of Brooks. When I google "Clay College", I get a school in New Jersey. Does anyone know what school this "Clay College of New York" refers to? I assume it is either defunct or has changed names, but it's odd that I can't find any mention of it outside of Brooks. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: several biographies mention that she taught at City College of New York, so I'm betting that's what was meant here. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works[edit]

I have moved this here for referencing before going into the article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwendolyn Brooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gwendolyn Brooks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is gwendolynbrooks.net related to Gwendolyn Brooks?[edit]

The External Links section contains a link to www.gwendolynbrooks.net but it is not clear who owns that site, what its exact purpose is nor what its relationship with the author is other than that it tries to make money using the author's name. Should that link even be kept on the site? --ChristopheS (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gwendolyn Brooks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwendolyn_Brooks&oldid=1194497706"