Talk:Betty Shabazz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Beloved Freak 19:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
Well written, just a few issues outlined below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
External links go where they should. There's a good range of reliable sources used. No uncited portions.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As far as I can tell it covers all the main points (with the minor exception of her name, wueried below in prose section) and is focussed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and without bias.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
a couple of recent reversions but most recent edits seem to be improving the article to this state.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Image use is ok, but rationales could do with a bit of work
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Prose/MoS[edit]

Early years[edit]

"Neither Georgia nor Michigan has been able to locate her birth certificate." - Don't know if it's just me, but I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence. I get the gist, but presumably the state of Georgia itself has not been looking for her birth certificate?
"By most accounts, Ollie Mae Sanders neglected or abused Betty Sanders" - what exactly is meant by abuse? As far as I know, neglect is generally considered a form of abuse, so it shouldn't be "neglected or abused"
You have "African-American" here and later on, you have "African American" with no hyphen
- It's my understanding that when "African American" is used as a noun, it doesn't get a hyphen, but it should be hyphenated when used as an adjective (as it is here). If you don't agree, I'll remove the hyphen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't disagree, just didn't know that! No problem.--Beloved Freak 21:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to the abuse, the source says, "How Betty herself was treated as a small child is unclear, though there is some hearsay and legend in the Shabazz family." Her grandmother found "an ugly sore" on her neck. In one interview, her foster mother said her mother had been "mean" to her, but didn't elaborate. In another interview, the foster mother said she didn't know the specifics of the mistreatment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel certain that I have read of Ms. Shabazz being abused as a child elsewhere. If we're going to need another source to help this meet GA, I'll do some delving, and see what I can find.Mk5384 (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to be more specific for GA, I think it's broad enough in that respect. Obviously an FAC may require a little more detail. My main gripe is that neglect is a form of abuse, at least by today's standards, so it was the sentence structure that was bothering me. I see you've changed that now, so it's fine. If you can find more detail/references about the nature of the abuse, that would be great, but I don't consider it necessary to pass GA.--Beloved Freak 08:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of Islam[edit]

"After dinner, the woman asked Sanders to come to the Muslims' lecture. Shabazz agreed." - presumably "Shabazz" here should be "Sanders"
In the quote, "he was going someplace much more important than the podium.... He got to the podium" - is that ellipsis in the original? Or is it marking an omission from the original? If so, it should be as ... with a space on either side. I'm not sure that it shouldn't be like that even if it was the original. That's to say, some editors argue for changing original punctuation to be consistent with Wikipedia WP:MOS. However, my main concern is that if the ellipsis is your, it should be three periods, spaced. Same goes for the quote in the "Pilgrimage to Mecca" section.
- Done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

Unless I'm completely missing something, it's not clear at what point she became known as Betty Shabazz, or why. Was it upon marrying Malcolm? I doubted that because you said that Betty X became a registered nurse on the day she got married. Then I thought maybe it was when she went to Mecca, but it just says that she received the name Bahiyah.
- Upon becoming a Muslim, she was known as Betty X. Malcolm X began using the name Malik Shabazz around the time he left the Nation of Islam and made his pilgrimage (1964). Betty was referred to variously as Mrs. Malcolm X or Betty Shabazz in the press after Malcolm X's assassination. I wasn't able to find a source that said "as of this date, she changed her name", so I started using Shabazz after the couple left the Nation of Islam. Should I be clearer about that? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, if you can find anything to back it up, otherwise I understand why you've written it as it is. I just felt that I was missing something when I read it, that's all. Perhaps a sentence in the bit about leaving the Nation of Islam, even if, for lack of sources, you just have to say that Malcolm started using that name. Up to you.--Beloved Freak 21:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

The images are ok; one free and two non-free with fair use rationales. I do think that the two non-free ones could use a little work on the rationales, specifically the purpose for using the image in the article. "To illustrate the article" isn't really enough. I would add the fact that the subject is no longer living so it would be difficult to obtain a free image. The second image you could maybe say that it illustrates a key point in her life, and American history etc. I don't think there's a problem with using either of them, but just add a bit more to the rationales.

These are my main issues with the article. I also have a few more suggestions which I will outline below, but these will not impact on whether the article will pass or fail.

The first two citations for her date of birth could perhaps be combined into one cite, leading to a "notes" section (or with a different name; separate from your current notes section). I just think it would be aesthetically a bit better, avoiding two citations right on top of each other in that initial sentence, and moving the "note" away from the references (currently "notes") - hope that makes sense, I'm confusing myself now! You could then cite Rickford within the note at the bottom of the page.
Rather than wikilinking her daughter and grandson the way you have in the lead, I would actually name them. I don't see any reason to save it for later, especially as they are fairly well known in their own rights.
In the infobox, I would just link to Sunni Islam rather than to both articles separately. There's no real need to link to the Islam article there, readers will probably get all the need from the Sunni Islam article, and if not, can easily move on to Islam from there.
The "Leaving the Nation of Islam" section is very short and has short paragraphs. It just looks a little "choppy". Could the section be combined with another? or could the two paragraphs be combined?
It would be nice to have the date that she joined the Nation of Islam in the lead, and in the main text (although it's a little clearer there) just to provide context when you then give the date that they left.
In the lead, the "American racism" link seems a little unusual. Is that a common term in the US? If so, no problem. I was just wondering if maybe you should just leave it as "racism", but still with the same link that you have now. I'm just not familiar with "American racism" as a concept. Obviously I realise that racism is different in different places and times, but is it an actual recognised term or concept? As I say, if it is, no problem, just ignore me!

That's it; not too much to do. I'll put the article on hold so that you can address the issues. Please let me know if you have any questions or disagree with any of the comments. Really enjoyed reading it, by the way!--Beloved Freak 20:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. With respect to the date Shabazz joined the Nation of Islam, the source simply says "by late summer or fall 1956". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all pertinent issues have been dealt with, so I'm happy to list this as a good article. Well done!--Beloved Freak 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]