Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maya Angelou/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:54, 30 July 2012 [1].

Maya Angelou[edit]

Maya Angelou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after almost five years of working on this and other Maya Angelou articles, I feel that it's finally ready for the FAC process. It's one of the most collaborative articles I've worked, with lots of editorial assistance, including two WP:PRs. It represents a huge amount of research. I believe that this article is finally worthy of its subject, an important literary figure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Thank you for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for FN3?
    Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether footnotes use notes or parenthetical references
    Fixed the one instance, thanks for the catch.
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography
    Yikes, got it.
  • No citations to Baisnée
  • Removed. Left over from when I created the forked article Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
    Got it. This is exactly the reason I've switched to manual reference formatting.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    Um, all the books have locations. Maybe you're talking about Long and McWhorter, which are periodicals and don't require locations.
    I was looking at Moyer and Foerstel, are those periodicals too? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry, I didn't look at the "Notes" section. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you use The New York Times or just New York Times
    Got it, thanks.
  • Don't italicize agencies, do italicize publications
    Fixed.
  • Magazine formatting should be the same between notes and bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See above re reference formatting. I'll need a little more time for this, so I'll get to it later on. Thanks for the feedback and for catching what I missed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just finished addressing last comment. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
  • The opening of the second paragraph is awkward: "Angelou's long list of occupations has included..." My argument is that the list, once it includes a certain occupation, forever includes that occupation. List items do not leave the list. It should be "Angelou's long list of occupations includes" unless the present tense is not wanted in the paragraph.
    Okay, done.
  • It is distressing that there are no images of Angelou as a singer or dancer, and that there is no image of the album cover from Miss Calypso. I think an effort should be made to discuss the photo shoots that Angelou did in the mid-1950s with G. Paul Bishop described briefly here, some of them shown here at the late photographer's website which is now run by his son. (G. Paul Bishop Jr is a portrait photographer like his father.) Perhaps one of these can be shown to the reader under a non-free fair use license, because it is discussed in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article at one time had the album cover you suggest, but it was removed after one of its PRs. I'm familiar with the images you bring up, and one of them also used to be here, but again, it was removed after a reviewer's suggestion. I'm sure that Bishop is important, but Angelou has probably participated in scores of photo shoots. What makes his shoot more important that all the others? And why is her time as a dancer more important than her time in other projects? Why isn't it just as "distressing" that there are no images of her in The Blacks or in Roots, which are arguably more important than her relatively short time as a dancer? I can guarantee that if we added any of the images mentioned, someone else in this very same review would recommend that it be removed. It's been a challenge to find appropriate and free images for this article. I've tried lots of images throughout the years, but have come to the conclusion that this article, like other BLPs, should have only the freest and more appropriate images in it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? "Angelou preferred to be called"...why preferred in past tense if she's still alive?PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, that's a problem if you're trying to keep the tenses consistent. I chose to use past tense. Have any recommendations to solve it? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Angelou expressed a preference in the past, and we assume the preference continues today. We can frame the preference in time, or simply place it in the past. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about: According to her biographers, it has been Angelou's preference..." I'm not sure that I like it; it feels awkward. Any ideas? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source check. I don't have access to the books. Conducting a check on the online sources.

  • FN5 – a. "Angelou's older brother, Bailey Jr., nicknamed Marguerite "Maya", shortened from "my-a-sister" Not mentioned by source.
b. tour bus. Yes supported by source.
c. times married. Yes supported by source.
d. lecture circuit in eighties. Yes supported by source.
e. younge quote. Yes, as written in source
f. Balzac quote. Yes, as written in source.
  • FN18 – birth of son Clyde. That Guy Johnson was a poet, yes; other facts in sentence not in the online version of source.
  • FN32 – a. Legendary quote. Yes, as written in source.
b. Postpones quote. Yes, as written in source, but grammar doesn't scan.
c. Homilies quote. Yes, as written in source.
d. Mayfield quote. Yes, as written in source.
e. Setting a precedent. Not convinced the source is indicating that Mayfield "insisted that Angelou's autobiographies set a precedent not only for other black women writers, but for the genre of autobiography as a whole". The para in the article appears only to talk about black biography. Can you get the original Mayfield source?
f. Zeitgeist quote. Yes, as written in source.
g. World quote. Yes, as written in source.
  • FN48 – a. Didn't celebrate birthday. Yes, reflects source.
b. Campaign for Clinton. Yes, reflects source.
  • FN60 – Scope of appeal. Yes, reflects source.
  • FN83 – Recipe book. Yes, reflects source, except not that "stories that preceded each recipe": the structure of the book sounds more complex, according to the source.
  • FN108 – National Medal. Yes, reflects source.

This is an absolutely fascinating and generally well-written article about an amazing person, but some of the source issues (FNs #5 and #18 in particular) make me a bit nervous. Can you please review? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I did a thorough source review of this article. I made more than a few corrections/improvements. It was tedious and took forever, but I think that it was a worthwhile and necessary task. In the midst of the review, I made a startling discovery that the reviewers here might be interested in; see Talk:Maya_Angelou#Plagiarism. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This has progressed well. However, I'm still not seeing a source for the fact "Three weeks after completing school, at the age of 17, she gave birth to her son..." - the source only seems to indicate his later name. I'm still not clear why he article says Mayfield was talking about autobiography as a whole (rather than black autubio), and I'd welcome your comments on this. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've always wondered if it was worth citing events taken from Angelou's autobiographies. The birth of her son is related in Caged Bird, so I went back and made the specific citation. The Mayfield statement, as Als states in his article, is implied. I can see how it could be considered unclear, so I clarified it. I'm fairly certain that everything else is accurate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons to cite the autobiographical sources is that it can flag limitations to reliability. People aren't necessarily very reliable sources about themselves. They lie about all sorts of things, but also mis-remember their past, particularly when they are writing many years removed from the events they describe. Putting in the cites to Angelou's work can help readers exercise caution. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I get this. Angelou's autobiographies are background for the years before 1968, but 6 out of 56 of the sources in the sections that discuss this time period are from the autobiographies. I have run into this while working on this article; mostly in the timing of when things happen. Even Mary Jane Lupton, one of Angelou's biographers and reviewers, I think, had to deal with this, as expressed in ref 78. I think that I've done well in addressing the problem here, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Angelou's major works have been labelled as autobiographical fiction" labeled on account of American English.
    Oops, fixed. I work on too many Brit and Aussie articles! ;)
  • Variety is the work, not the publisher for Ref 140
Fixed.
  • Per WP:YEAR, shouldn't "Africa to Caged Bird: 1961–1969" be in fact "Africa to Caged Bird: 1961–69"? Lemonade51 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The stuff you learn here! Thanks for the feedback; looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness having read this over. Been a while since I last read I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings – Angelou has lived a very interesting life. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um guys, this has been languishing here for a little while. Did I miss addressing any concerns? (I'm pretty sure that I addressed them adequately.) Does the lack of expressed support mean that it fits the criteria, or should I be concerned? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. You may also want to ask Binksternet if they have any additional comments or is willing to weigh-in with a Support/Oppose. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Attribute? - "The challenge for much of the history of African-American literature was that its authors have had to confirm its status as literature before they could accomplish their political goals, which was why Angelou's editor Robert Loomis was able to dare her into writing Caged Bird by challenging her to write an autobiography that could be considered "high art"." - That sentence (at least the "challenge ... accomplish" part) sounds like a personal opinion; hence should not be presented in a factual, encyclopedic voice. Recommend attribute that thought explicitly to the source asserting it.
    Done by adding the phrase "According to..." to the sentence.
  • Avoid "however" - "McWhorter, however, found both the language .." and "McWhorter recognized, however, that much of the reason .." - usually "however" or "but" can be removed and the sentence gets better. Neither of these sentences are really contradicting the prior sentence, so I'd recommend removing.
    Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)
  • Simplify: "As Angelou's biographers have stated, Angelou had "fallen in love with poetry in Stamps, Arkansas". - That is an odd way of writing it. Everything in the article, presumably, came from a biographer. Suggest simplify to "Angelou fell in love with poetry in Stamps, Arkansas ... [include year/age and perhaps some explanation of why/how] ...".
    Actually, no, not everything comes from a biographer. Much of it comes from scholars and reviewers, people who are analyzing her works. I use that phrase to attribute the Gillespie et. al book throughout this article. Are you saying that I need to change each instance?
When I read that sentence, I get confused because I (like most readers) have not read the bibliography, and I presume there are multiple biographies (each with one author). So "As A's biographers have stated" means that 2 or more of those books include that identical quote. That is implausible, so it makes me stop and think that must be a mistake. Maybe the article, near the top, defines "biographers" as Gillespie, Smith, and Jones (authors of a single work)? I might have skipped that explanation. Also, even if there is only one major biography today, what if another one is published next year? then that phrasing becomes inaccurate (see WP:DATED). Consider changing to "As Gillespie has stated ...", where it is understood that Gillespie refers to the team of authors. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done as you've suggested. BTW, Gillespie is the only bio of Angelou out there. I mean, there has been lots written about her in the popular press, and most of the literature about her includes a short bio, but Gillespie is the only book that's devoted to telling her life story. I imagine it's because of her autobiographies. I avoided using it after it was published in celebration of Angelou's 80th birthday in 2008 because all the writers are close to her and ironically, I was concerned about puffery. But I think that its content is important enough, and it clears up some timeline issues.
  • Details? - " Her attempts at producing and directing films were frustrated throughout the 80s." - Why were they frustrated?
    That was my attempt to summarize what Gillespie et. al said about Angelou's frustration with Hollywood. I can see how it can be considered as opinion, so I removed it. Perhaps Angelou's attempts to get some projects filmed says it all.
  • Specifics? - "Evidence suggests that Angelou was partially descended..." - What evidence? DNA? Family history?
    Fn 75 supports this assertion. I would think that referring to the documentary would be adequate. If not, I can go back and include more specifics about the evidence.
  • Format: - "terature they wrote. [34]" - space before footnote.
    Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put footnotes at the end: "Scholar John McWhorter agreed, seeing Angelou's works, which he called "tracts",[97] as "apologetic writing".[97] " - It is best for the reader to have all the footnotes at the end of the sentence, unless there is a compelling reason. There are two quotes there, but they are by the same source, and have the same cite, and are only 2 words apart: so one footnote at the end is sufficient.
    Fixed, went through article for other occurances. If you see others that I've missed, please point them out. What about ref 12 in the last paragraph of the section "Personal life"? Currently, they're a few quotes from the same source; should they just name the source once?
  • Vary wording: "Author Hilton Als has insisted that although Caged Bird was .... Als also insisted that ..." - Used "insisted" twice; change one to "concluded" "asserted" "claimed" "stated" "believed" etc.
    Got it. If anyone sees other instances of consistent wording, please point it out too.
  • Bundle cites: - "She has served on two presidential committees,[109][91] and was awarded the National Medal of Arts in 2000,[110] the Lincoln Medal in 2008,[111] and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011.[112]" - consider consolidating all footnotes at the end of the sentence so it is more aesthetic. For explanation of how to do that, see WP:CITEBUNDLE.
    Like I said above, the stuff you get to learn here. I went through the article and bundled what I thought was appropriate. Again, let me know if I need to do it more.
  • Pics when younger? - I shared the concern expressed above by another reviewer about the lack of pics from her younger days. On the other hand, if they are not available, then that is not a bar to FAC status. Suggestion: If none are freely available, consider one particularly illuminating photo (showing her in some key career position, e.g. singing professionally) and consider degrading the image (reducing the resolution) so it could - perhaps - be used following the fair use rules. See WP:NFCI for explanation of what constitutes fair use. For example: to use a copyrighted pic of her singing, it must be accompanying text that analyzes/critiques her singing. Also, the picture used in WP must be reduced in resolution (fuzzier) than the original copyrighted picture. Let me know if you want any help with this.
    Yes, I'd like some help. Images have always been my weakness in WP. I add an image to an article that I think follows procedure, and another editor comes along and tells me that I did it wrong and it has to be removed. I have access to some good and possibly appropriate images, so let me know.
Okay, do this: (1) read WP:NFCI; (2) look at some examples of other copyrighted images used in Featured Articles (e.g. image File:Du Bois with Mao Tse Tung 1959B.jpg in article W. E. B. Du Bois).; (3) Find a picture of Maya Angelou's earlier years that meets the following criteria:
  1. The picture is needed to give the reader an understanding Angelou's life
  2. The picture is encyclopedic and informative
  3. The article specifically analyzes or examines the activity shown in the photo (e.g. her singing, performing, etc)
  4. There is no non-copyrighted alternative to this picture
  5. The picture conveys information in a way prose alone cannot
  6. It is best if the picture is of an especially notable event or performance in Angelou's life
After you have the image, let me know, and we will:
  1. Degrade the image by making it reduced resolution (fewer pixels) I use Adobe Photoshop, but there are dozens of other ways to do it.
  2. Upload the degraded picture to WP (not to WikiCommons)
  3. Include a "fair use rationale" with the image that explains the above six points in detail
--Noleander (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll take this part of the improvement to a talk page, since you've made it clear that adding images won't affect this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, a fine article. Leaning towards Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nole. I appreciate the helpfulness. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky

  • FN 12, a web site, has no retrieved date
    I hope you don't expect me to find the actual date it was retrieved; I've been working on this article for a few years, you know. ;) I added today's.
  • FN 34 needs date of article added
  • Fixed.
  • FN 47, 76, 95, 96, 100, 103, 114, 120, 147 are books, they should be in same format as the other books
  • 47 and 100 aren't books; they're journals and formatted correctly. Fixed 76.
  • FN 92, 111...Washington Times/Foxnews, respectively, should be the publisher and Associated Press should be listed as "|agency=Associated Press", AP is the news agency, it doesn't publish things itself
  • Not according to Template:Cite news. But no sweat; I've always thought that calling the AP a "publisher" is inaccurate too. I don't think it matters much, since both attributes look the same anyway.
  • as this is heavy on book refs, this article is a prime candidate for conversion to sfn/harv refs
  • Personally, I don't like the harv ref format. Please understand that my preference is solely due to aesthetic reasons and it isn't so strong that I refuse to convert them here though. Unless you tell me I don't have to, of course. ;) Seriously, though, I think that as long as the references are accurate and consistent in format, it doesn't matter what format is used. With a few errors which are correctable, the refs in this article are both those things, so I'd really rather not convert them if I don't have to. But thanks for the feedback and for catching the last few errors. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Leonxlin

I've only read the lead so far, and I hate to be so cranky, but I think the tone could be a lot more dispassionate (WP:Writing better articles#Information style and tone, WP:PEA). To be sure, it looks like editors have been very careful to avoid pure puffery. I would be much happier, though, if some of it were cut down a bit:

  • She has published six autobiographies, five books of essays, numerous books of poetry, and is credited with a long list of plays, movies, and television shows. May I suggest less subjective wording, like a list spanning four decades or similar?
  • I changed "numerous" to "many" because it's a little difficult to count her works of poetry. Do we count her volumes of poetry alone, or the poems published on their own? And what about her poems included in her other books and in Poetic Justice? I changed "long" as you suggested, except that it's over fifty years.
  • She is one of the most decorated writers of her generation, with dozens of awards and over thirty honorary doctoral degrees: How about just "She has received dozens of awards ..."?
  • Ok.
    This is the one comment from Leonxlin with which I don't entirely agree. If sources have referred to her as "one of the most decorated writers of her generation" (or similar words), then I think the phrase should be retained. It serves to give us comparative information about Angelou in relation to other writers. We don't know how many honorary doctorates etc are handed out, so this phrase gives us additional information: not just that she is decorated, but is more decorated than most others. It also gives the lead a better 'sound' as it is read. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and most highly acclaimed, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969), tells of her first seventeen years, and brought her international recognition and acclaim. Do we really need acclaim twice in a sentence? By mentioning the book in the first paragraph, I think readers will get that it was her most important work.
  • Removed the phrase "and most highly acclaimed".
  • Angelou's long list of occupations includes pimp, prostitute, ... I would argue that this kind of wording violates WP:ASTONISH, though I admit it's hard to come up with a better wording. Can we at least get rid of long?
  • Yes we can, and I did. ;) I've struggled with this sentence a lot. I'd like to keep it because it describes Angelou's career and all the things she's done and accomplished through these occupations.
  • Removed "heralded as a new kind of memoirist". The old wording parallels the critics' language. Plus, I was trying to avoid direct quotes in the lead. I think that removing the offending phrase will make everyone happy.
  • highly respected: how about just "respected"?
  • Done.

Leonxlin (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, I think that your issues are about my weakness as a writer of leads. I find it the hardest kind of writing here. As this article's main editor, I leave the peacockiness to others, to the critics, which are, for the most part, complimentary of Angelou as a writer and as a person. It's ironic that you bring it up, since as I state above, I avoided using the Gillespie book because I suspected (and was mostly correct) that it was fluffy. I relented on the advice of another editor and when I looked at it, I found that although it's self-congratulatory in many places, it fills in many of the holes left by uncertainties in Angelou's autobiographies and interviews, answered many questions, and made this article more comprehensive. I tried my darndest to leave it all out, though. That being said, I don't think there's much fluff in the body of the article, although I admit I could've overlooked it because I do greatly admire Angelou. That's why we have multiple editors and reviewers, so I appreciate the assistance. I really want students to get accurate information about Angelou, since her books are commonly used in schools, but I want the article to be respectful. I think that I've been mostly successful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes; I feel much better now imagining this on the front page someday. I think I understand the feeling of wanting readers to understand how great something is. It's clear some craft went into some of these sentences. I'll try to get to the rest of the article sometime soon. Leonxlin (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She took modern dances classes during this time: should it be "modern dance classes"?
    Urgh, right.
  • There are a number of red links in the biography. I will just leave WP:RED and WP:WTAF here, and leave the case-by-case judgments up to those more familiar with the article.
  • Personally, I hate red links. I understand that their purpose is to help create new articles, so be assured that every current red link has been placed with that in mind.
  • renewed her friendship with James Baldwin, whom she met in Paris in the 1950s: the pluperfect "she had met" seems appropriate here.
  • Clyde's becoming a poet is mentioned twice, once in an explanatory note. Doesn't matter too much though, I guess.
  • I think that important enough to mention twice, especially since they occur miles away from each other in the text.
  • The I also wear a hat quote does not have a period at the end. Is this intended?
  • The first sentence of the "Critical reception" section appears to be missing a period as well.
  • Angelou is one of the most honored writers of her generation.: the only quibble I have of the sort I mentioned above in the lead. While it's from the article the claim is not unreasonable, this sort of statement is vague (one of how many writers?); plus, when we're talking Tonys and Grammys, it's clear that we're not just talking about a writer here. May I suggest starting the section with "For her work, Angelou has been honored by..."
  • Challener insisted that sounds like he has an opponent. (Does he, or is there some reason for him to be so insistent?) The standard verb for presenting a thesis, I believe, is argue.

I will see if I can get to the last two sections soon. I don't think anything too damaging will appear though, so right now I'll just put in my

  • Support on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4. (It appears others have taken care of the references and the images.)

Leonxlin (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maya_Angelou/archive1&oldid=1089817287"