Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies/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 GrahamColm 20:15, 4 November 2012 [1].

---

Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies

Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies/archive1

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve articles about Maya Angelou, I believe that is now ready for FAC. Its GAC reviewer has stated that he believes that it is ready too. Enjoy and learn! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this has taken me a while to address; it's been a busy and stressful week. I'll start now and hopefully finish by the end of the weekend.

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Missing bibliographic info for Bloom, Arensberg/Arensburg, Cudjoe, Lauret, O'Neale
• Why include date in short cites to Lupton?
• FN54: missing space
• Check page formatting throughout
• Look for template glitches like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

All the above is now fixed. Thanks for the catches. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment The lead doesn't seem quite there yet:

• The lead doesn't summarise the article very well (there's very little about the actual themes). I'd have expected at least a couple of sentences about every one of the four themes, but instead there's one paragraph introducing the books and another talking about their genres and structures. The only relevant thing I can find is that racism is present in all the books. Suggestion: trim the present lead of its tangential stuff and add two paragraphs summarising the four major sections of the article.

After thinking about it, it occurs to me that the problem with this, other than my weakness in writing leads, is that the content in this version's lead belongs in an "Overview" section, so that's what I did: I created a new section, placed the content there, and then I wrote a new lead that correctly summarizes the rest of the article. Does that help?

• Prose: variants of the word "autobiography" are used thrice in one sentence.

Pretty sure that I fixed that, if I got the sentence you're talking about.

• The last sentence repeats the first one: "racism, identity, family, and travel."

Fixed.

• I haven't read the rest of the article, nor any Angelou, but I'm surprised that no "Other/Minor themes" section is necessary. Can all the themes in these six books be placed into these four headings?—indopug (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Themes are discussed in Lupton and McPherson; please give me a few days to look again and see if there's anything that I've missed. I tried, however, to include all major themes that appear in all six books as complied from writing articles about them. Would it clarify if I were to state that these four are the "major themes" in them? We may need to change the name of the article as well, to "Major themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so after looking back at the major sources, I've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to change the title of this article as I suggest above. Yes, there are other themes that the authors discuss, but they don't represent the consensus. For example, Hagen has a chapter about Angelou's use of humor, but he's the only reviewer that does so, and I hesitate writing an entire section based upon just one viewpoint. There are also themes that are exclusive to each autobiography, but they're discussed in the individual articles. The four listed here are common to all the autobiographies. I don't think this is the place to list every single theme--again, another reason to change the title of the article. What do you guys think? If a reviewer directs me to do so, I'll go ahead and change the title. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to change the title. My incination is that the reader would expect this article to cover themes that recur across the books, and not cover subject matter that was a theme in just one of them. I think that is the common sense position. The 'humour' issue is a trickier one. However I would suggest that humour is not a theme, it is a mode of writing / genre / style. "Themes" to me relate to the subject matter, and the four headings to me share that nature.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Likely not doing a full review with too little background knowledge, but a few comments:

• Lead - "Angelou's autobiographies are distinct in style and narration, and 'stretch over time and place',[3] from Arkansas to Africa and back to the US." ==> The first part sounds very vague, what exactly is so distinctive about her style and narration? I realize, the main text elaborates this, but the lead should atleast name 1-2 main features of her writing style.

Perhaps this issue is addressed by what I describe above: move the lead in the previous section to a new section, "Overview", and write a new lead. In case you still have the same issue after this, I added a note to refer to the "Style and genre in autobiographies" section in Maya Angelou because I'm not sure a discussion of this would fit here.

• "...and 'stretch over time and place'" ==> Is that quote note-worthy for the lead? Most autobiographies describe the different "life stations" of the author - that's kind of their point to begin with.

Again, in "Overview" section now. Actually, what you describe isn't how Angelou structures her books. Again, that's discussed in the main article.

• "Angelou's autobiographies have been characterized as autobiographical fiction, but scholar Mary Jane Lupton has insisted that all of Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure: they are written by a single author, they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." ==> This statement seems problematic, one opinion is mentioned without any supporting arguments and background, the other is backed up with additional arguments. Who is characterizing it as autobiographical fiction and why? 1-2 main arguments for this position would be good to balance this out. Also the statement is not completely clear about, which one is the accepted mainstream position or are both opinions equally popular?.

Lupton seems to be the only one who makes this statement--that critics have characterized Angelou's works as autobiographical fiction. I clarified this statement by adding to the beginning of the sentence, "According to scholar Mary Jane Lupton..." There aren't any glaring controversies about how to characterize the genre of the books.

• The article is a bit difficult to read, as the main text immediately jumps into a very detailed analysis of the themes. Maybe a small general "overview" about all autobiographies (Name, timeline, main topics of each) could help readers with little background knowledge. Obviously you can't rewrite the whole autobiographies sub-article, but maybe a 1-2 para summary would be possible.

See above re: "Overview". There has been articles written about all six books, so couldn't the writer refer to them?

• The article structure in "themes" appears logical, but i miss some kind of analysis, how those themes influence each other and build up a common narrative. Some of this information is buried in the sub-sections, but without any overarching commentary it's difficult to get a complete picture.

Okay, here's the problem with writing articles about Angelou. Most of the scholarship about her was written before all six of her autobiographies were written, even in the scholarly literature, at the time of her speech at Clinton's inauguration, most likely due to the fact that she became so well-known at the time. There was also a long period between the fifth and sixth autobiographies (16 years), and her popularity in comparison had waned. There's a need for something that unifies all her books, and for good scholarly work done on how the themes in her books go together, but it's just not out there, and the main Angelou scholars are no longer in the picture. I suspect that much of this need will be filled after Angelou's death, when much scholarship is done about writers. For our purposes, I think that I've done a good job at demonstrating the scholarship that been done up to this point. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quotes: the article uses several very short "quotations" (some only one or two words), which are referenced, but not directly attibuted in-text. The over-usage of this small quotes should be trimmed - quotes are only necessary, when the quoted text can't be paraphrased or the quote is a unique, relevant text, which is needed to understand the article. Most of those small quotes can be easily paraphrased and consist of relatively common phrases, so they should be rephrased in your own words.

I believe that I've cut many of the small quotes you mention. I've kept some when they're unnecessary, although choosing which quotes to keep and which to remove is based on my editorial judgment alone, so if you feel like I should do more, let me know why and I'll follow your suggestions.

As mentioned, i am certainly no expert in that area, so take that as some outsider's perspective. GermanJoe (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I appreciate it. That's partly what this process is for--to get feedback and assistance in improving these articles. Outside eyes are always helpful. Sorry it's taken me so long to address the comments; I'll try and get to the other item (adding an "Other/minor themes" section over this weekend when I have more time to devote to it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment just realized, i should have numbered those points from the start, oh well. Anyway some quick replies:

1. Lead and Overview - that change helps a lot to get into the article, but you may want to split the second lead para in 2 - it's too long for the lead and contains a lot of info to digest.
2. Lupton and genre - OK.
3. Themes - further general analysis. If there is not enough material about this aspect, no worries. The article can only use available sources.
4. Quote situation - has improved. It's a case by case decision, as you said - just avoid quoting common or easily paraphrased statements.

Thanks for addressing those points. GermanJoe (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks again for the review. I split the paragraph as you request. What do you think about the change in title? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Both the first lead sentence and the first overview sentence already make it quite clear, that the article only talks about major themes throughout her autobiographies. Themes, which have little or no secondary discussion by other scholars, are probably not notable enough and do not need inclusion. ==> I think, you could leave the article title as is. When more scholarly discussion about other themes is published, you can always add a new section.

• Support - I was the GA reviewer. GermanJoe has already addressed what my outstanding concerns were with the quotes and lead. The article fully meets the FA criteria now. maclean (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

SupportComment. An engrossing sequel to the main biographical article. The structure appears sound, the idea is good, the scholarship too looks good. The copyediting seems to perhaps need a little work. Some specific comments or queries:

• lead has "The rest of the books in her series also include..." I'm assuming this is a comprehensive list (it should be), so it should simply read "The rest of the books in her series are..."

It is comprehensive. Ah, simple is always better.

• This sentence needs work: "Their unity underscored one of Angelou's central themes: the injustice of racism and how to fight it and consisted of "a sequence of lessons about resisting racist oppression"" - the two "ands" create a problem; also, the subject of the sentence is "their unity", and their unity cannot "consist" of something.

Fixed by separating the sentences and added "According to scholar Pierre A. Walker, all of Angelou's books described..." to the second sentence.

• "in African-American autobiography specifically, which had its roots in the slave narrative,..." SHould that be "has"? Does it no longer have those roots (I don't know).

Fixed. I looked at the other instance of this phrase, in the "Travel" section. You'll see that I changed things to reflect that Black autobiography is developed from the slave narrative, but kept the term "rooted" as a subtle reference to Alex Haley. Not sure if that will fly here in the FAC world. I'm willing to change it if I must and if reviewers direct me to do so.

I don't think there's any problem with that subtle reference, except this non-American completely missed it! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• In the overview section, there is a conceptual/definitional problem. Lupton states that the autobiographies "conform to the genre's standard structure: ...they are chronological,..." Two sentences later, however, we are told they "did not follow a strict chronology". This apparent contradiction should be resolved.

Hmm. Lupton states that Angelou's books are autobiographical because, in part, they are chronological, but Walker states that the events in her books don't follow a "strict" chronology. I see a big difference. The Caged Bird article explains a bit more (which I avoided doing here because it's meant to be a summary), about how although the events are presented chronologically like most autobiographies, they aren't necessarily presented in the order in which they actually occurred. Should I expand that explanation here?

I suspected this would be the explanation. I don't think it needs much expansion, just a slight rewrite to clarify, so that it doesn't trip the reader up. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem might best be solved by deleting the phrase "although their arrangements did not follow a strict chronology". The key points surely are 1. that the series is, in general, chronological (stated in the earlier sentence) and 2. the structure is thematic. The phrase I've suggested deleting just muddies the second of these points and, bearing in mind that this is an overview section, doesn't need to be made. i will leave it to you. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Have done as Ham has suggested, since he makes a lot of sense. Of course, that meant that I had to revise the following sentence; done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for the helpful review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - Did I miss the image review? I would hate to see this archived for lack of support, and encourage reviewers to commit, one way or the other, to make consensus apparent. Graham Colm (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have pinged GermanJoe and Indopug asking whether they would consider revisiting. For my own part, I'm done and supporting. Thanks Graham.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, i'll try to take another look over the weekend. GermanJoe (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. The two images are not problematic. Graham Colm (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment - some additional comments (close to support):

• Racism "At least one reviewer has criticized Angelou for harboring "a fanatic hostility expressed toward all white people"" ==> Such a strong statement doesn't work with the vague "At least one" source. Reviewer Daisy Aldan is mentioned in the source as author of this statement, any reason why she is not named here?

Other reviewers have commented on my tendency to over-utilize the statement "according to...", so I went overboard to the other extreme in this case, which is another tendency of mine. I realize that there are times when it's necessary. I changed the offending statement, which meant that I had to revise the following statement.

• "She was not completely comfortable with the arrangement, however; as Lupton pointed out, Angelou never named her roommates." - the connection between both parts of this sentence is a bit vague. Is "not naming her roommates" indicating, that she didn't really get close to them and kept some distance?

I'm wondering if I should just remove that statement. Lupton says that Angelou didn't name her roommates, despite the importance she places in a couple of places in her books on names and naming, which indicated how little she thought of them and the lack of closeness she felt with them. Yes, I realize that's another theme, but there's not enough information to dedicate an entire section to it and it smacks of OR. (Ah, yet another topic to write about if I ever got the opportunity to write scholarly articles about Angelou.) I didn't even think it was important enough to mention in the Singin' and Swingin'  article. It may be too complicated to explain here; what do you think?

• Travel "The travel motif [is demonstrated] in Traveling Shoes, as evidenced in the book's title,..." ==> "is demonstrated" sounds awkward for an encyclopedic article. Maybe "The travel motif is a recurring theme in ...".

Ok, done.

• Besides those minor points i am still concerned about the handling of source attribution, several relatively common statements attribute their source immediately in-text, some examples (please check throughout the whole article):

• "As feminist scholar Maria Lauret has indicated, Angelou and other female writers in the late 1960s and early 1970s used the autobiography to reimagine ways of writing about women's lives and identities in a male-dominated society."
• "Lauret has stated that Angelou, as a woman, demonstrated the formation of her own cultural identity throughout her narratives."
• "Hilton Als has insisted that while Angelou's original goal was to write about the lives of Black women in America, her goal evolved in her later volumes to document the ups and downs of her own life."

None of those examples appears especially controversial or extraordinary. Only controversial statements and direct quotes need immediate in-text attribution to their source. Make sure, statements like the above are phrased in your own words, then the original source does not need to be mentioned in-text ("normal" citation is sufficient). When you trim down in-text attribution to only the necessary cases, you can avoid a lot of those repetitive "According to ..." and "X stated ..." phrases.

Ah, see what I mean! ;) I will do as you suggest.

Overall a very nice article, that seems to cover all aspects of its topic - interesting even for a semi-ignorant reader. If the usage of direct quotes and attributed text can be trimmed a bit more, i'll be glad to support. GermanJoe (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support - A bit more easy, if tedious work is needed. There is overuse of state and assert verb forms. Honestly I think the text could use a copyedit for structural variety, but that's not a deal breaker imho.

In general, I thought it was accepted that when citing an author we use the present tense (hence Joe Shmoe asserts...). I see that Brianboulton didn't use that for Rite of Spring, however, so this may not be true. Disregard this rambling.

Lead:

• Their unity underscored one of Angelou's central themes: the injustice of racism and how to fight it. - The last bit "and how to fight it" doesn't match with the rest of the sentence. I'd prefer a revision of the injustice of racism and a method for fighting it, or something more eloquently-put but with the same idea.
• I'm confused why it's Black-white relationships. Should they both be capitalized, or neither?

Racism:

• Reviewer Hilton Als observed that Angelou's witness of the evil in her society, as directed towards Black women, shaped Angelou's young life and informed her views into adulthood. - I'm not sure witness is used correctly as a noun. Correct me if I'm wrong.
• Again the Black-white issue.
• The word "stated" is overused in this section. I'm making an attempt at reducing it.

Family:

• O'Neale maintained that "no Black woman in the world of Angelou's books are losers", and that Angelou was the third generation of intelligent and resourceful women who overcame the obstacles of racism and oppression. - Is this a typo, or is this taken from the source? If so, it should probably have an nl [sic] tag.

Travel:

"white" - capitalized or not?

Good work. ceranthor 22:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where Christine is right now. On the B/black W/white question: per MOS, proper names are capitalised per standard usage. The question is: what is the standard usage? There is little question that the standard usage is Black; what I'm not clear on is standard usage regarding white. Here's an abstract of an article from American Speech that, while written about the term 'Black', in the process suggests the proper thing is to capitalise white. This site suggests APA style is to capitalise both. However, I am not convinced that white is generally used as a proper noun, whereas Black is used in that way. I think one would need to be satisfied that the usage was intended to be equivalent in nature (not an adjective, for example). Sorry that isn't more definitive. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to address this earlier but it's been a busy weekend. This issue has come up in most reviews of Angelou articles; I really should put a disclaimer explaining it when I nominate them. (I think I will from now on.) This is an editorial decision made early in the progression of the creation and improvement of Angelou's articles; see here. The short explanation is that "white" isn't capitalized because Angelou doesn't, and "Black" is because she does. All other editors have found the explanation acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Article: The setting in Angelou's first two autobiographies was limited to three places (Arkansas, Missouri, and California), but the "setting breaks open"[Lupton, p. 98]
• Source: This is on p. 99
• Article: Lupton stated that Angelou's travel narrative in Singin' and Swingin', which took up approximately 40 percent of the book, gave the book its organized structure. Angelou's observations about race, gender, and class made the book more than a simple travel narrative.[Lupton, pp. 99–100]
• Source: Her observations of race, gender, and class, along with the personality that she brings to every situation, prevent Singin' and Swingin from becoming a travel narrative.
• Article: As she told an interviewer, she brought her son to Ghana to protect him from the negative effects of racism because she did not think he had the tools to withstand them.[42]
• Source: Between 4:17 and 4:28 in the video.

No issues except the page number. Graham Colm (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite a formatting issue which may or may not be a bug, I fixed the discrepancy. ceranthor 17:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Graham. I was planning on coming here this afternoon and address the final comments, I promise, but you passed it anyway. How nice you are! I will deal with the feedback now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

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