Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1

In this article, we will explore the impact and relevance of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1 in contemporary society. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1 is a topic that has aroused the interest of experts, academics and professionals in various fields, due to its influence on different aspects of daily life. Over the next few lines, we will analyze the implications of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1 in the social, economic, cultural and political spheres, examining how this phenomenon has shaped our perceptions, behaviors and interpersonal relationships. Likewise, we will delve into the different perspectives and debates that have arisen around Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1, with the aim of shedding light on its multiple facets and realities.
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 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) .

Gather Together in My Name

Gather Together in My Name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, as part of my on-going quest to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's this one's turn to submit to FAC. I also think it's good to go. A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation: Thanks; I look forward to the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Review by Evanh2008

As per my standard review strategy, this one looks almost good enough to be a featured article. I'll have a handful of very minor concerns related primarily to prose. Please feel free to strike items as you resolve them, or I can come along later and strike them for ease of reading and navigation. Feel free to disagree with or question my reasoning on any of these.

Thanks, Evan. I submitted this article with the intention of improving it before anyone started a review, since it's my experience that articles tend to languish here for a while (although not nearly as long as they do in GAC). And then you jumped right in! And the changes I needed to make were more extensive than I expected. I think that we're ready to go now, though, but what it means is that many of your comments no longer apply.

Lead section:

  • I would put a space after the ellipsis following "doorknobs".
  • Perhaps change "great difficulty" to "the great difficulty"? I can't give a technical explanation for this, but I think it reads better.
I'm a little surprised you didn't nail me for the lead. The version it came here wasn't really a lead; it was more of a background section. Consequently, I've removed much of the content there and either removed it completely or put it in other sections, including creating a new "Background" section and adding more information garnered from other MA articles. Could you please review the new version?

Title section looks good. No issues here.

Plot summary:

  • For clarity, you should insert a comma following "girl of my age" (before the closing quotation mark). This is standard quotation formatting, and the Manual of Style allows for minor modification to quoted material for stylistic issues.
Fixed, it was a silly typo.
All the above fixed.
  • "death of her brother Bailey's wife" — Would "her sister-in-law's death" read better here?
Perhaps, but my intention was to introduce Bailey and to convey the emotional distance Angelou felt towards the woman.
  • "back in San Francisco" ---> "in San Francisco" — Unnecessary wordiness.
Done.
  • That last one brings up a minor incongruity I just noticed. Two paragraphs above, Angelou is sent to San Francisco by her grandmother, but this paragraph (at least its original wording) implies that she is going back there. Where was Angelou in the intervening period (i.e., during her relationship with Poole and her marriage to Tolbrook)?
All this happens in the Bay Area, but the scattered-ness of the book resulted in my scatter-ness as well. (How terrible is that; blaming the great Maya Angelou for my writing shortcomings?) ;) I made some changes that perhaps clarify it somewhat.
  • According to the Manual of Style, "L.D." should be "Tolbrook" after the first use of the name. I'm willing to let "Rita" slide since it helps to emphasise that Angelou is not yet going by "Maya".
The book refers to him at "L.D.", but I changed it anyway. The other issue it clarifies is that in Angelou's autobiographies, which are fictionalized, the people she talks about, including herself, are characters. In this book, the character is "Rita" because she's no longer "Maya" as in Caged Bird, but she's not yet "Maya Angelou". She doesn't change her name until Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas (a FA), her third autobiography. I try to refer to her character as what she calls herself in each book. That's why I call her "Maya" In Singin' and Swingin', and it's what other commentators call her when they discuss the book. In Heart of a Woman (another FA), I call her "Angelou" because that's who she has firmly become and because the book is more about her adulthood. Is that long-winded explanation enough? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll review the remaining sections within the next few days. If you haven't heard back from me by the weekend, feel free to give me a ping at my talk page. It all looks good, though. No major issues as far as I can tell. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ranges should use endashes
  • FN43: italicization
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate states
  • Be consistent in how you notate works within larger works - compare for example FN 7 and Cudjoe. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I've revamped the reviews since, and all the above are fixed, so could you take another look, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing do-over:

  • FN3: what source does this refer to?
  • Be consistent in "retrieved" vs "retrieved on"
  • Ranges should use endashes
  • Be consistent in whether you italicize journal volume
  • FN45: missing italics
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate states
  • Be consistent in how you notate works within larger works - compare for example FN 7 and Cudjoe. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
All the above fixed, except for the last point. The way that I've notated works is consistent, but in a different way. My tendency is to put sources in the "Works cited" section only if they're used more than once, and then cite it like this: "Cudjoe, p. 20". If a source is used only once, like with Braxton's article in the Casebook, I put it in the "Notes" section. This practice, which I think is clearer, is done consistently. If you don't like this practice, explain why and if it's reasonable, I'm willing to change it. Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. In FN7 I see "In Joanne M. Braxton, ed. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" (editor then title); in contrast, Cudjoe has "In Black Women Writers (1950–1980): A Critical Evaluation, Mari Evans, ed" (title then editor). I see that the ordering is different between the two sections, but why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see now that I totally misunderstood you. I think I've made the corrections you requested now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Gave it another read and it seems to be just about perfect. I'll give it a second look for punctuation, etc., but the fact that I didn't notice anything this go-around tells me it's good to go. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Image Check

Selection is good, an both are licensed properly..--Dom497 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger

Plot Summary
  • I am getting a little lost in the 3rd para.
I think that the changes I've made should be satisfactory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Themes
  • It is not so unusual for plot sections to have few links, but I am confounded in this section.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want more links in the plot summary, or in "Themes", or both?
Themes section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Done.
I've linked the few notable ones; hopefully, it's enough. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Critical reception
Well, he says that her honesty is formulaic and the events described are confusing. I can see how that's confusing, though, so I reworded the second part of the sentence. I think it does a better job of explaining what he meant.
Yes, to my surprise, there is! The stuff you learn in Wikipedia. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Please move link to first use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Duh, oops, done. Got overly excited. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt (addressed)

Addressed comments moved to talk page. — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia