Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC) [1].

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

edit
Notified: WikiProject Women writers
WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's listed at WP:URFA. It's taken me a while, mostly due to RL commitments, to check it for sources and to improve its prose, but I feel it's ready for an FAR. I haven't notified any other users, since I'm the main editor of this article, although I did notify the appropriate wikiproject. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick comments, and please double check my edits/summaries (I'll try to have a look through the rest another time) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC):[reply]

  • "For example, Angelou was worried about her readers' reactions to her disclosure in her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, that she was a prostitute. She went through with it, anyway, after her husband Paul Du Feu advised her to be honest about it.[36]" Do you have an example from Caged Bird? I worry that you're drifting too far from the topic.
I understand your objection, but I think that this should stay. It supports the assertion in the previous sentence, that Angelou was a pioneer of self-disclosure, and provides an example of it. I realize that Du Feu's advice occurred after Caged Bird, and in connection to another autobiography, but I think it provides comprehensiveness. I'm not unwilling to accept your direction, though.
  • "Angelou's editor, Robert Loomis, agrees, stating that she could rewrite any of her books by changing the order of her facts to make a different impact on the reader." You say this at least twice, and you link to the article on Loomis several times.
Actually, just twice, but you're right of course, so I removed it in the "Style and genre" section. I did a little restructuring of the article for this FAR, so the redundancy is an artifact of it. Thanks for the catch.
  • "For example, Maya responds assertively to the demeaning treatment by her white employer Mrs. Cullinan and later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Are you missing a word or two here?
Um, I don't think so. Could you please make the correction you think should be made? Then I'd know what you think is missing.
I think the meaning is clear- my worry is solely a grammatical one. I think it's the fact that the victim of the "demeaning treatment" is not made clear. How about (I've also played with commas) "For example, Maya responds assertively when subjected to demeaning treatment by Mrs. Cullinan, her white employer, and, later on in the book, breaks the race barrier to become the first black streetcar operator in San Francisco." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, replaced with your better sentence as per your suggestion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with an ear for dialogue—a good listener with a rich oral heritage. Hagen also insists that Angelou's years of muteness provided her with this skill." Reference? Also, I think this is a little non-neutral.
It's a paraphrase of Hagen (p. 19). I added the ref at the end of the sentence. I could include the entire quote if you like.
I think it's a little critical to say in Wikipedia's "neutral" "voice", so a direct quote may be beneficial. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks for the copyedit and for your comments. Waiting for additional comments, but there's no hurry with the time of year and all. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Critic Pierre A. Walker agrees" This is quite a claim- he literally agrees that Caged Bird is "perhaps the most aesthetically satisfying autobiography written in the years immediately following the Civil Rights era"? (Also, grammatically, you're claiming that he agrees that it has been called that- surely not the claim you want to make. You could change it to something like "expresses a similar sentiment".)
Great suggestion! I've changed the phrase as per your request. I looked at the source again, and I think that the case could be made that Caged Bird is aesthetically satisfying, since he categorizes it as "high art". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""heralded the success of other now prominent [black women] writers"" Do you mean Black? Or are you meaning something slightly different? I know that some writers do this, but it's not going to be familiar to the majority of Wikipedia's readers.
The original source did make a connection between Black women's literature and the success of "now prominent writers". Perhaps I made the connection too strong, so I changed the wording to better reflect the source: "...and was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In one of the few negative reviews of Caged Bird," Do you have a source for the claim that it's one of the few negative reviews? If not, perhaps you could change this to something like "the book's reception has not been universally positive"
Well, there's no source for your version, but I went ahead and changed it, anyway. I think there's some room in encyclopedic writing for making connections that are obvious but not specifically sourced, as long as it's done sparingly. I believe this is one instance of that.
  • "Dr. Jocelyn A. Glazier, a professor at George Washington University, has used" I am not clear on why she gets a "Dr." and "professor at x" when everyone else just gets "scholar"
Yah, others have given that same feedback about using titles. I guess we missed that one. I think that I used Glazier's job because her article is specifically about training teachers at a university setting. I removed the "Dr." but I think it's appropriate to keep her job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the discussion of the film belongs in the censorship section; it should probably be given its own section, or else added to a modified "influence" section.
Hmm, it has, in the past. How the heck did that happen? Perhaps I accidentally removed it when working on the Censorship section. Fixed now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For both style and copyright reasons, I think a straightforward cover scan would be preferable to the side-on view currently used.
Okay, changed.
  • Is there a particular reason you do not use an infobox?
There's no infobox because when we worked on this article, several of us were philosophically opposed to infoboxes. At the time, I agreed, but my position has softened a bit since. I still think they're ugly and not always necessary, but I've come to get their purposes. I can insert one, but remember that the article passed FAC without it, and there's nothing in the FA criteria that requires them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very readable article- I learned a lot. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Although this article was one of my first FACs, it was a foundational experience for me and I'm very proud of it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇.

edit

A beautiful article, I definitely see no reason for it to be delisted or this review to remain open. I did come across a few minor things with the prose that I thought I'd ask about:

  • Tense switch: "She placed herself back in the time she is writing about"
  • Switch from one's to their: "the title pulls Angelou's readers into the book while reminding them that it is possible to both lose control of one's life and to have their freedom taken from them."
Above two fixed.
  • "...always saying I meaning 'we'". Is this how it's written in the source, with quotations around the 'we' but not the 'I'? Just checking.
Yes, that's exactly how it was written; Angelou taking poetic license.
  • "Scholar Joanne M. Braxton sees Caged Bird as an example of the autobiographies written by African-American women in the years following the civil rights movement." Well, obviously it's 'an example'--any one of the books would be an example. Maybe an exemplar? Or "sees it as exemplifying"? or "typifying"?
Improved via direct quote.
  • "Angelou has never admitted to changing the facts in her stories..." The first part of this para quotes her admitting that.
I respectfully disagree. The first sentence of the paragraph states that she recognizes that there are fictional aspects to her writing and that she uses autobiography differently.
Done. Moved other images and quoteboxes accordingly.
  • This sentence is difficult to read since it looks like "Momma becomes less effective as Maya": "The two main maternal influences on Maya's life change as well; Vivian becomes a more active participant, while Momma becomes less effective as Maya, by becoming a mother herself, moves from childhood to adulthood." Maybe a pair of m dashes?
You're right, of course. Changed to: "The two main maternal influences on Maya change as well; Vivian becomes a more active participant in Maya's life than Momma, while Maya, by becoming a mother herself, moves from childhood to adulthood."
  • Inconsistent capitalization of 'Black': "the strong and cohesive black community of Stamps". Sorry if there's some reason for this I'm unaware of.
This is a long-standing usage for this article and other Angelou articles; see here [2]. When a quote is used, I retained that author's use.
  • "Hagen also characterize Caged Bird" characterized? characterizes?
Oops, got it. How the heck did that get past us? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps split this sentence? Or some conjunction: "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame and critical acclaim, was a significant development in Black women's literature in that it "heralded the success of other now prominent writers"." Also it's a bit oddly placed in the middle of a para otherwise full of individual critics' specific statements.
Separated and improved; perhaps it reads better now.
  • Might the reception section flow better with the paras slightly rearranged? It's currently: Acclaim, Awards, Positive reviews, Sales, Negative reception. How about instead: Acclaim, Awards, Sales, Positive reviews, Negative reception. I also suggest the sentence starting "Caged Bird catapulted Angelou to international fame" move from the middle of Positive reviews to Acclaim.
Um, again I respectfully disagree. The structure of the reception section has been discussed and analyzed, and been through several FACs to arrive at its current structure. IOW, to be a little more rude, you're the only person who has suggested this kind of structure. I support remaining with consensus.
  • This sentence seems tacked on out of place at the end of the school censorship para: "Some have been critical of its sexually explicit scenes, use of language, and irreverent religious depictions." What if you reversed the order of the 2 paras in Censorship, and put that sentence at the end of the general censorship para? Actually it might make sense to combine those paras too, since the general one is just a sentence.

Overall a great read and no problems that would merit delisting. delldot ∇. 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureskatingfan: Hey, just making sure you saw these suggestions. delldot ∇. 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it; I just spaced because things have been busy IRL. Thanks for the reminder. I'll try and get to this before the end of the weekend. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, no hurry at all, just checking! delldot ∇. 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Delldot:, I appreciate the feedback and your kind words. Sorry for the delay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great, every point is addressed except the last. Also now ref 33 reads, "Cite error: The named reference brzton-64 was invoked but never defined". Great work overall! delldot ∇. 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the silly typo. Thanks again! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2016 (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_review/I_Know_Why_the_Caged_Bird_Sings/archive1&oldid=1088117505"