Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Autobiography of Malcolm X/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:34, 11 March 2011 [1].

The Autobiography of Malcolm X[edit]

The Autobiography of Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC), Protonk (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN and two peer reviews we believe the article is FA quality. — GabeMc (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was trancluded on 9 February; when transcluding a FAC, please update the timestamps to avoid premature closing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • All sources look good. Some require fee or subscription to view the article, and these should be noted, by adding either "Fee required" or (subscription required) to the citation. This applies to 69, 70, 74, 75, 76. Check for others.
  • Spotchecks: Mostly OK, but: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X one of the ten most influential nonfiction books of the 20th century"[78] I can't see this mentioned in cited source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to get a scan of the original article but I think the marginal notes in print made clear those 10 books in the linked reference were the top of the "Time 100" non-fiction books for the 20th century. Protonk (talk) 22:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I linked to the Table of Contents of that issue of Time, which describes the list of nonfiction books. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I added the {{subscription}} tags where appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link to the "Table of contents" adds nothing and should be removed. The Paul Gray source will be OK if you change the text to correspond with what's in the source, which lists ten "required reading" nonfiction books. It doesn't say "ten most influential" and doesn't mention the 20th century. So you should say: "In 1998, Time named The Autobiography of Malcolm X as one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books". Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll change it, but I believe you're wrong. The cover of Time says "100 Artists and Entertainers of the Century" and the Table of Contents indicates that this list is part of a special section whose contents are all "most influential". But I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match over it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Oppose
    • " Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative."—who are Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson (in other words, why do we care what they think?) Likewise, every time you bring in a new critic, professor, what have you, explain who they actually are. Wikilinks are not a crutch for unclear writing.
    • "and was credited in much the same way ghostwriters are credited, when they are credited."—Besides having way too many "credited" in close proximity, this doesn't actually explain how ghostwriters are credited.
    • "modern sources tend to treat him as an essential and core collaborator"—which ones? you start out by essentially stating this as fact, but at the end of the paragraph you appear to only have Dyson and Marable supporting that idea.
      • By the end of the section it is clear that modern sources such as Dyson, Marable, Eakin, Stone, Gillespie and Wolfenstein all support the idea that Haley was "an essential and core collaborator". — GabeMc (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In a view shared by many critics"—I'm uncomfortable with this, as the citation schema suggests that no source clearly stated "many critics", instead it's a synthesis of different books' reaction to the view.
    • The biggest issue here is that the article is severely tilted out of balance; the critical response section is inadequate I feel for telling me exactly how the book was received. There are only really positive views selected, but is that actually representative of its reception at the time? Can you objectively source "Other contemporary reviews were positive but mixed"?
      • I'll try to make this more clear in the text, but what we have are reviews from The Nation, NYT, Newsweek, Time, LAT, and I think (though it isn't in the article) the Saturday Evening Post. Apart from snippets or references from other secondary works, we can only work from those reviews. I know this doesn't count for much but I don't have a strong reason to believe those reviews are not representative. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but we need to prove something is, not that something isn't or given the benefit of the doubt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've removed the sentence in question. I'd like to be able to make a broader claim about contemporary reviews since a lot of retrospective commentary doesn't focus on the actual distribution of opinion about the book, but I'll wait until I find a source. Protonk (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also concerned about the excessive quotations, which may have been attempts to avoid close paraphrasing. Either way they give the article a disjointed feel, more a collection of facts and views in some sections than a cohesive article about a subject. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

  • Note to nominators - You may wish to get proactive in seeking reviews for this nomination. The first nom was archived for lack of attention, and this one is going that way. With the FAC backlog as it is, I would normally archive the nom at this point, but I'm willing to let it run longer since this is your second attempt. Please drop notes at relevant WikiProjects asking for reviews, ping previous reviewers, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else to put in my box of reasons why I don't usually bring things to FAC, I guess. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what that means. I'm just providing advice as a delegate for how to move your nomination forward. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noted. I'm just making a general comment. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I left requests at the three relevant WikiProjects (Books, African diaspora, and Islam). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - But here are a few minor areas of possible improvement:
  1. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" seems overly long; should be broken into a couple of subsections.
  2. Section "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" could use a better, more precise title that encompasses all that material.
  3. Pic of MLK near top of "Malcolm X and Haley as collaborators" section doesnt seem too relevant at that location. Move?
  4. I would like to see a small section at bottom on "Impact" or "Legacy" or "Influence" of the book, which summarizes latter works that refer to it, or pay homage, etc
  5. I would combine the two sections "References" and "Further Reading", but that's just my preference.
  6. True bibliophiles would insist on a list of the editions (I presume there were multiple)
Otherwise, great article. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I tweaked the title a little (2), but it will need a better title when it's split into smaller sections (1) tomorrow. Moved the pictures (3) and combined the two sections (5) (did you mean sort them together, or just move them under one heading?). I agree that a section on the book's influence would be a great addition (4), but I don't have the time now to research it properly (deadlines at work). As for different editions (6), that's also interesting research that will have to wait (unless somebody else can do it now). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding (5) References vs Further Reading: I suggested combining them into a single list. But that is just my preference, and there are good reasons for leaving them as two lists. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference is to break them back out, but it isn't a big deal. Protonk (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. They were never combined. --Noleander (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Alex Haley needs linking on first mention in the body (taking the example of Malcolm X, which is linked in both the lead and the body).
  • Regarding the first block quote in Construction, it describes how Malcolm X "stopped almost as if he was suspended like a marionette", and then how he continued walking. Could some context be given in its introductory paragraph describing the fact that he was walking to begin with (which would add to the power and meaning of the quote)?
    • The source the quote is taken from gives no context of Malcolm's pacing, except that Haley was asking Malcolm questions. However, the quote itself does state, "And that was the beginning, that night, of his walk". — GabeMc (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So he started after he stopped? Alright. Apterygial 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He expended energy to minimize his own voice, signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy." Are the two parts of this sentence linked? That is, did he sign the contract to "minimize his own voice"? "signing" or "and signed" might then be more appropriate here.
  • I also don't understand the use of "nominally" here; was it "nominally in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy" or did he nominally "limit his authorial discretion"?
  • "Haley writes that during the last months of Malcolm X's life "uncertainty and confusion" about his views were widespread in Harlem." What is the relevance of Harlem in this case? Why is it important the article tell us about the "uncertainty and confusion" in Harlem in particular?
    • The source, (Andrews 1993, p.152) specifically refers to "uncertainty and confusion" in Harlem, about his views. Harlem was Malcolm's base of operations. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haley influenced the narrative's direction and tone while remaining faithful to his subjects syntax and diction." Needs possessive apostrophe.
  • The third paragraph in Publication, sales, and critical reception is a bit of a mess, tense-wise. Fremont-Smith and Ward's receptions to the book are framed in present tense, for example, and then Rustin, Newsweek and Nelson's are in past tense. The next three sentences are present, present, past. I think a decision needs to be made about which is best to use.
  • "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin, who was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished." The repetition of "... , who ..." here is slightly clumsy; could it perhaps be re-worded? For example, "In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; he was later joined by screenwriter Arnold Perl, who died in 1971 before the screenplay could be finished."
  • Not sure of the official ruling on this one, but I believe the ISBNs in Editions need formatting so they link (as in the References section).
  • The "GoodReads book statistics" reference needs more detail.
  • To some extent I share David Fuchs' view (above) that the extensive use of quotes gives the article a disjointed feel; it doesn't tend to flow as a narrative, rather it seems to be in places simply an analysis of the critical commentary. This is not really an actionable point, but it is perhaps worth bearing in mind for future articles. Apterygial 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote issue is a tough one. If you look through the past revisions of the page you'll see that what quotes remain in the article are significantly pared down from where it stood even before the GA nom (let alone after the RfC). The issue at the core of the article is the debate over the book authorship as it relates to ideas about autobiography, imputed ideas about Malcolm X himself, and the back and forth over how a narrative becomes a published work (or vice versa). Apart from that debate the commentary on the book is fairly pedestrian. Also, among the quotes left on the page there are at least 2-4 which are too good to summarize and too central to remove. I know that isn't really an answer, but it is an idea as to where we are coming from. Protonk (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have no outstanding concerns. Apterygial 23:24, 9 March 2011 (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/The_Autobiography_of_Malcolm_X/archive2&oldid=1138472871"