Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Heart of a Woman/archive1

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 Ian Rose 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Heart of a Woman

The Heart of a Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my ongoing goal of improving articles about Maya Angelou, I am nominating this for featured article. I believe that it's pretty much ready to be an FA; I appreciate and look forward to reviewers' feedback and comments. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last nomination was only closed six days ago. You have to wait for two weeks before nominating another article. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, Graham, but I withdrew the nomination two weeks ago, and you guys didn't get around to officially closing it for a week. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitting; I believe the two-week waiting period has passed. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Angelou's long-time editor, Robert Loomis said that she could rewrite any of her books by changing the order of her facts to make a different impact on the reader." - source?
  • FN8: should this be Oxford University Press?
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
  • Compare FNs8 and 11
  • FN19: not in Works cited
  • FN33: volume? pages?
  • FN39: italicization
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and corrected all the errors/issues with the source formatting. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be better if the cover were from the first edition. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but there's not a good quality image of the first edition cover. I added "2009 trade paperback edition" to the caption. Is that enough? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) Quite comprehensive, well written and meticulously sourced. High encyclopedic value, high educational value. Thank you for contributing to this worthwhile quality improvement project on Wikipedia. Just a minor quibble - not sure if it's appropriate to have the ISBN number in the lede or the mention of the Book Club thingy til the next sentence. — Cirt (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, made changes as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But I have some comments, most of which reflect my thorough lack of knowledge of the subject, but at least demonstrate that I read the article.
    • Who is Als?
Fixed.
    • Compared to her other books, Angelou has come a long way in her interactions with whites and people of other races Having not read the other books, I have no idea what is meant here.
I'm not sure what unclear here, but I struck the sentence because if it's unclear to you, it'll be unclear to others. It doesn't really add anything to the text, anyway, and there are already other ways to say the same thing--that Angelou developed in her interactions with races other than her own.
    • Angelou becomes more politicized and develops a new sense of Black identity Why is Black capitalised, while "white" is not?
Ok, you've just decided it for me. This question comes up every time one of Angelou's articles is reviewed. Here's the answer: [2] Since this question comes up so often, I've decided that from now on, I'm going to anticipate it and add it as a qualifier whenever I submit these articles for review. Thanks! ;)
No worries! That is a fine explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was looking for something about when and where the book was written.
Um Hawk, are you sure you read the article? ;) The first sentence of the lead has the year in parenthesis after the book's title, and the third sentence states that it was the fourth book in her series. The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead states the years the book scans. In the body, it says that the book was published in 1981 and that it was her fourth autobiography in the first sentence of the first paragraph, and the first sentence of the third paragraph states that the book opens in 1957.
I got the bit where the book was published in 1981, so it was obviously written before then. I was thinking of something along the lines of "was written in a yurt in Nepal in 1976-77, in longhand on the back of a ream of fanfold computer paper, but was not published until 1981". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. You're closer than you'd think. Actually, Angelou does have a routine she goes through when she writes, recounted in other articles, but not here because I didn't think it fit. (See [3], final paragraph.) I can put the info here if you think best. If so, where do you think it should go? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just lift that paragraph and drop it into the "writing" section. But it's your call. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 Fair-use, PD-USGov, CC, PD-not-renewed). Sources and authors provided.

Comment - i'll do another thorough read later, some initial comments:

  • lead "Critic Mary Jane Lupton says it has "a narrative structure unsurpassed in American autobiography", and that it is Angelou's "most introspective" []". => needs a noun here.
  • "It was chosen as an Oprah's Book Club selection in 1997." => needs a specific subject, last sentence was about the title. Also, i would put this sentence at the end of the second para with other critics. It is a bit disconnected in the first para.
1st two comments addressed, thanks.
  • "...[gets involved with] the US civil rights movement ..." => "supports" to avoid repetition of "involved"?
Ok, chose "becomes active in..." because it describes what happened better.
  • Background "While Angelou was composing her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, she was concerned about how her readers would react to her disclosure that she had been a prostitute." => see WP:BLP, please double-check the source and add a citation immediately after that sentence (i am not doubting the fact, but such statements need to be especially checked).
  • "According to Als, Angelou sang and performed calypso music because it was popular at the time, and not to develop as an artist." => citation needed
Next points addressed.
  • Genre "Lupton compares ... dictates the book's form." => the quote is sourced, but the whole second half of this para with lots of thoughts needs a source from Lupton.
Ok. I tend to both (1) avoid overciting, and (2) go to the other extreme. Personally, I believe that references are like adjectives and adverbs; they should modify everything that goes before. I understand that people have different opinions about that, and since I also believe that you should follow the suggestions of reviewers, so I do so here. Let me know if it was adequate, please.
  • Style "Hagen writes that although "frank talk seemed to be almost requisite for a commercially successful book" in the early 1980s,[38] Angelou values monogamy, fidelity, and commitment in her relationships." => Another citation should be at the end of the sentence, if Hagen made the whole statement.
Done.

Aside from such minor quibbles the article looks comprehensive and well-structured, more to follow. GermanJoe (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking forward to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evanh2008 I'm going to address this section by section, starting with the lead. Many or most of my comments will be with regard to grammar, punctuation, formatting, and other prose issues.

Lead section:

  • I would drop the comma after "Ghana," as it seems somewhat unnecessary. The list is not parenthetical, so there's no need to set it off from the rest of the text.
  • Decide whether you want to use serial commas or not. In the list of countries you use it, but not in the list of things she did in those countries (e.g., "Cairo, and Ghana", but "gets involved with the US civil rights movement and becomes romantically involved".
  • I would put a comma after "motherhood" and de-hyphenate "new-found".
Addressed the above.

Background:

Last 3 items addressed.
  • "states that Angelou's work" ---> "stating that Angelou's work" — I think this helps it read better and avoids an awkward pair of conjunctionless verb constructs.
Instead of correcting it your way, which I think made a run-on sentence, I relegated Mayfield's statement in a note. I think it better fits there, too.
  • "genre of autobiography" ---> "autobiography genre" — I'm not terribly sure about this one, so feel free to disagree. I've just never heard "autobiography" used as a collective noun before.
I'm inclined to keep it as it is, since it emphasizes the autobiography as a genre. I could remove the word "genre", which means that it would read "...but for the autobiography as a whole". Plus, if we're treating the word like this--like the novel or non-fiction or poetry, it works, even if it's not a popular usage, which I suspect is the case Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
I'd like it to be, since there's a potential for the article to be created. That is the purpose of redlinks, right?
  • "her first album Miss Calypso" ---> "her first album, Miss Calypso," — Non-restrictive again.
  • "Angelou eventually gave up performing for a writing career, and became a poet and writer." — This pair of clauses is redundant. I would change it to "Angelou eventually gave up performing in favor of a career as a writer and poet."
Section addressed.

Plot summary:

  • I would insert a comma after "difficult for Guy".
  • "prime minister Patrice Lumumba" ---> "prime minister, Patrice Lumumba".
  • Remove the comma after "Godfrey Cambridge". This is not a non-restrictive clause. Same for the comma after "(SCLC)".
  • "community of friends and Angelou" ---> "community of friends, and Angelou"
  • "Angelou accepts a job in Liberia and she and Guy travel to Accra where he has been accepted to attend college." ---> "Angelou accepts a job in Liberia, and she and Guy travel to [the city?] Accra, where he has been accepted to attend college."
Addressed comments in section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre:

  • "they are chronological and they contain elements of character, technique and theme." ---> "they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." — Insert two serial commas.
  • I'm not sure if it's in the original or not, but I would enclose the personal pronoun "I" (in "always saying I") within single quotation marks, to match the treatment of "we" in the same sentence.
  • In the last sentence of this section, "a" should be "an".
Above addressed.

Style:

Done.
  • "a technique that centralizes the two books and connects them with each other," ---> "a technique that centralizes the two books, connects them with each other," — I realize you probably worded it like this to make it clear that ref #39 cites the first two items, but it's hard to justify joining two of the items with the conjunction "and", but not the others.
Ok, my solution was to put the refs at the end of the sentence.

Themes:

  • "Race is a central a theme" ---> "Race is as central a theme"
Done.
  • Remove comma after "The Heart of a Woman" in the first sentence.
I've decided this sentence was too awkward, so I changed it to: "Race, like in the rest of the series, is a central theme in The Heart of a Woman.
  • Should "whites" be capitalized?
No. See explanation above.
  • Link "spiritual"?
  • "that inspires the book's title" ---> "that inspired the book's title" — Not sure there's a good reason to use present tense here.
Done.

Critical reception and sales:

  • "Critics gave The Heart of a Woman positive reviews, especially its professional qualities." ---> "Critics gave The Heart of a Woman positive reviews, praising its professional qualities."
Done.

This is a fantastic article overall, and does a great job of contextualizing the book's composition. It is comprehensive without a doubt, and I'll be happy to support once the prose issues are addressed. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot one thing — Note #2 ("See Angelou, p. 55.") is vague, as you cite two of Angelou's books in the footnotes (Heart of a Woman and Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now). I assume this note is in reference to the former, so I would change it to read "See Angelou (1981), p. 55."
I understand, and went ahead and changed it here and in the other Angelou (1981) refs. However, the sources were cited in that way because I never cited Journey, but only referred to it. And thanks for the review, which was very helpful, and for the kind words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically you cite it in ref #11. I get what you're saying, though -- that it wasn't in "Works cited". Not a big deal, though, and much clearer now! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quote usage (point Done). The article still uses a lot of quoted material, where phrases are not that critical (imo) and could be paraphrased in your own words. Rather than just complaining :), i compiled a list of examples:

  • The title suggests a "lonely aching"
  • "official wife to Make, who had become a political leader in exile".
  • but by this time, she has "accumulated a multilayered memory"
  • Angelou successfully draws upon her previous works, "unveiling the various layers hidden in earlier volumes"
  • Angelou is able to "cheerfully coexist"
  • she searches for her "ancestral past".
  • For the first time in Angelou's autobiographies, she "begins her account of herself as a writer"
  • "Long years of living and mothering"[40] and her success
  • By the end of The Heart of a Woman, Angelou "finds herself increasingly alone".

None of these quotes is so special and unique to require a quote, their content is clear enough to use own words. Please check, if you can paraphrase some, if not all, of those quotes in your own words. The article is great content-wise, but depends too much on its sources original "voice". GermanJoe (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an interesting comment. But you're right; I went through and changed your examples, and will take another look through it and see what else I can paraphrase better. Thanks for the review! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from IndianBio – Hi Christine, would it be possible for you to add the year to the book notations? At present you have just the author surname and the page number, but I think the year addition is also important. Like you have two references to Lupton 1998 and 1999, both different books and hence you have used the year. But there needs to be a consistency throughout the article then. And I also believe the {{harvnb}} template is good in this case. Another point, the poem box in the Title section, can you use an em-dash before the line "The Heart of a Woman" by..... —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IndianBio. Personally, I don't like the harvard template, so I don't use it. A reviewer has never insisted upon it up to now. I believe that I have been consistent. Every other source convention doesn't do as you say; years are included only if there are two sources with the same author, and that's what I've done here. For me, this issue is a matter of choice and preference, which is okay as long as you're consistent. Which, as I already state, I have been. Fixed m-dash. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Evan!

Support - nice work on the quotes (i tweaked some paraphrases a bit more, please check). A comprehensive and interesting article in a somewhat underrepresented area on Wiki - it meets FA standards imo. Sourcing appears sufficient, all important facts and thoughts are cited. Some final comments:

  • "acts as his political wife" is paraphrased a bit awkward, but i couldn't come up with a better solution to preserve the original meaning
I feel you. I did a WP search for the phrase, and found that it comes up often in lots of articles, although there's no specific article, so much so that someone could probably create one. Although I suspect that there would be a deletion discussion. ;)
  • Unrelated to this FA, but your editor seems to leave a lot of double spaces while editing - especially after references (do you use the internal Wiki editor?). Removed all extra blanks. GermanJoe (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Heart_of_a_Woman/archive1