Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/James Baldwin: A Soul on Fire

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 09:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

James Baldwin: A Soul on Fire edit

(
)

Created/expanded by Groupuscule (talk). Self nom at 02:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I saw several mistakes in the text, such as "It play was written by..." or "wasjoined" (without space). You may use this page if you need help with the spelling. The article is not categorized either. Cambalachero (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment; I hope I have resolved these issues. groupuscule (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Reviewed. Newness: OK: (created 8th Oct). Grammar comment: Grammar had some issues as noted by the previous reviewer. I have corrected all basic grammar errors. Grammar fixes I have done were mainly comma splice. The article now conforms to WP:MOS for basic grammar. Article size is ok. Suitably referenced. The hook is engaging.
  • Comment on AGF: I hope to get the time to check some of the interesting REFs when I create a New York Times online account. Mediation4u (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Meditation4u, your edit summary when doing the above indicated that you felt the article was not "good to go", yet you gave it a tick, which means it is good to go and you're accepting in good faith the sourcing given. Does the nomination meet the DYK criteria or not? Have you completed all the checks including the close paraphrasing ones? In a quick once-over, I noticed that it doesn't have an inline citation for the final paragraph of the "Play" section as it is required to do, and this should be addressed before you reinstate a tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Cited that sentence, for what it's worth. <3 — groupuscule (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The REF requested has now been added, but the article may or may not be good enough for the main page. It is the weakest I have reviewed so far, so I think it is best taken up with the experts at WT:DYK for a third opinion. A worthy cause, but may need a bit more polish for the main page. Mediation4u (chat) nb: editing is fun 14:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I did a fairly extensive copyedit and I have a few more comments.
  • That one quote is awfully big.
  • You should standardise Black or African-American and not split between the two.
  • What makes Social Text a reliable source?
  • The only independent source exclusively about the subject is the NY times review. What makes this notable?
  • Some answers would be helpful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi hi, thanks for adding your voice! Here are my thoughts:
  • The quote is big but works around a single idea, the significance of 1963 in the world of James Baldwin. I think it's really great for context. I suppose it could be broken up and the events just described individually, as long as careful attention was paid towards attributing the original writer.
  • Black vs. AA — looks like kind of an adjective/noun thing right now, which seems reasonable to me. Also, they're different things, if overlapping. "Black" is a color (or at least a color related term) and "African American" is a statement about where someone lives and where their ancestors used to live. So in my mind they're not interchangeable and don't need to be exclusive (only one or the other can appear) within an article. Which is not to say I think the current uses are absolutely correct or anything like that—I just don't think theres inherent need for consistency.
  • Social Text is a notable academic journal—what would make it an unreliable source? The Sokal hoax? Also the claim being made with the article is easily verifiable elsewhere, and we could add more citations if we wanted.
  • Notability. In addition to the NYT there is an endorsement of notability from the Baldwin Literary Society and from Baldwin's biographer, David Leeming. That's pretty good. I'm surprised I can't find more news coverage, but the significance of the Baldwin/Kennedy meeting and the evidence significance of the play to inheritors of Baldwin's legacy seemed sufficient to me. (I mean, that's why I created the article about it—I usually work on historical events, not artworks.) If you do a web search you'll see dozens and dozens of pages like this one, generally coming from the Black/African community, testifying to the value of this particular play. I would also argue that the Baltimore Times and WBAI coverage are additional valid proofs of notability.
  • Thank you for the copyedit. I'm never sure about how to do dates, so I just write them like they get produced in the citations, even though in 'real life' I would format them the way you did it. I'm partial to all-caps-ing the names of the characters from the stage directions but I'm not wedded to it. Your syntactical edits improve clarity and NPOV.
  • And of course thanks to you, Crisco1492, and to Meditation4u, for your attention! I'm glad we are making the article better. groupuscule (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • A couple more sources (reliable, of course) would go a long way in establishing this play's notability. University websites, for example, or reviews of later performances... I often work with literature myself, although I have yet to write an article about a stage play. Generally I try for at least 2 or 3 reviews of a fairly recent work, or at least 1 scholarly article.
Splitting the quote would help a bit, to minimize possible copyright concerns. The source can stay the same.
I suggest keeping it standardised, as both Black and African(-)American have different connotations. Mind you, this is a fairly sensitive subject so I don't mind leaving this formatting.
I'm noting that the Social Text source is from their blog, hence a little hesitancy on my part.
Regarding dates, an easy rule of thumb is MM-DD-YYYY for American subjects and DD-MM-YYYY for UK subjects. Other countries aren't necessarily standardised on Wikipedia (a lot of Indonesian articles use the American styling, while others [mine included] use the UK styling). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I made a few drive-by edits and am satisfied with it, though I can't claim to have been consistent and complete. I won't have a problem with this going to DYK though. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Is that a tick? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Rereading again, this article is now much improved when compared to the first incarnation. That version attracted the initial criticism from the first commenters above. I concur with the previous two verdicts, Finally - GOOD TO GO. This review really shows how the spotlight of DYK can improve worthy articles. Mediation4u (chat) nb: editing is fun 09:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/James_Baldwin:_A_Soul_on_Fire&oldid=1021551070"