Talk:Mom & Me & Mom/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Seabuckthorn (talk · contribs) 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominator: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)

Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1: Well-written
 * a. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * b. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Check for WP:LEAD:


 * 1) Check for Correct Structure of Lead Section:  ✅
 * 2) Check for Citations (WP:LEADCITE):  ✅
 * 3) Check for Introductory text:  ✅
 * 4) * Check for Provide an accessible overview (MOS:INTRO): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Relative emphasis: ✅
 * 6) * Check for Opening paragraph (MOS:BEGIN): ✅
 * 7) ** Check for First sentence (WP:LEADSENTENCE): ✅
 * 8) *** Mom & Me & Mom (2013) is author and poet Maya Angelou's seventh in her series of autobiographies.
 * 9) *** Can you improve the flow? I mean, can you rephrase it so that "autobiography" is closer to "Mom & Me & Mom"? For example: Mom & Me & Mom (2013) is an autobiography by author and poet Maya Angelou which is seventh in her series of autobiographies. (Please feel free to ignore it, if you disagree.)
 * 10) **** I don't disagree, but I tweaked it a little differently. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 11) ***** "Mom & Me & Mom (2013) is the seventh book in author Maya Angelou's series of autobiographies." Perfect!
 * 12) ** Check for Format of the first sentence (MOS:BOLDTITLE): ✅
 * 13) ** Check for Proper names and titles: ✅
 * 14) ** Check for Abbreviations and synonyms (MOS:BOLDSYN): None
 * 15) ** Check for Foreign language (MOS:FORLANG): None
 * 16) ** Check for Pronunciation: None
 * 17) ** Check for Contextual links (MOS:CONTEXTLINK): ✅
 * 18) ** Check for Biographies: NA
 * 19) ** Check for Organisms: NA
 * 20) Check for Biographies of living persons:  NA
 * 21) Check for Alternative names (MOS:LEADALT):  ✅
 * 22) * Check for Non-English titles:
 * 23) * Check for Usage in first sentence:
 * 24) * Check for Separate section usage:
 * 25) Check for Length (WP:LEADLENGTH):  ✅
 * 26) Check for Clutter (WP:LEADCLUTTER):  None

✅

Check for WP:LAYOUT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Body sections: WP:BODY, MOS:BODY.  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Headings and sections: ✅
 * 3) * Check for Section templates and summary style: ✅
 * 4) * Check for Paragraphs (MOS:PARAGRAPHS): ✅
 * 5) Check for Standard appendices and footers (MOS:APPENDIX):  ✅
 * 6) * Check for Order of sections (WP:ORDER): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Works or publications: ✅
 * 8) * Check for See also section (MOS:SEEALSO): None
 * 9) * Check for Notes and references (WP:FNNR): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Further reading (WP:FURTHER): None
 * 11) * Check for External links (WP:LAYOUTEL): None
 * 12) * Check for Links to sister projects: None
 * 13) * Check for Navigation templates: ✅
 * 14) Check for Formatting:  ✅
 * 15) * Check for Images (WP:LAYIM): ✅
 * 16) * Check for Links: ✅
 * 17) * Check for Horizontal rule (WP:LINE): ✅

✅

Check for WP:WTW: ✅


 * 1) Check for Words that may introduce bias:  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Puffery (WP:PEA): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contentious labels (WP:LABEL): ✅
 * 4) * Check for Unsupported attributions (WP:WEASEL): ✅
 * 5) * Check for Expressions of doubt (WP:ALLEGED): ✅
 * 6) * Check for Editorializing (MOS:OPED): ✅
 * 7) * Check for Synonyms for said (WP:SAY): ✅
 * 8) Check for Expressions that lack precision:  ✅
 * 9) * Check for Euphemisms (WP:EUPHEMISM): ✅
 * 10) * Check for Clichés and idioms (WP:IDIOM): ✅
 * 11) * Check for Relative time references (WP:REALTIME): ✅
 * 12) * Check for Neologisms (WP:PEA): None
 * 13) Check for Offensive material (WP:F***):  ✅

Check for WP:MOSFICT: ✅


 * 1) Check for Real-world perspective (WP:Real world):  ✅
 * 2) * Check for Primary and secondary information (WP:PASI): ✅
 * 3) * Check for Contextual presentation (MOS:PLOT): ✅

None


 * Prose is preferred over list (WP:PROSE):
 * Check for Tables (MOS:TABLES):

2: Verifiable with no original research
 * a. Has an appropriate reference section: Yes
 * b. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: excellent (Thorough check on Google.)

✅

Check for WP:RS: ✅


 * 1) Check for the material (WP:RSVETTING):  (not contentious) ✅
 * 2) * Is it contentious?: No
 * 3) * Does the ref indeed support the material?:
 * 4) Check for the author (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 5) * Who is the author?:
 * 6) ** Angelou, Maya (Random House)
 * 7) ** Gillespie, Marcia Ann et al (Random House)
 * 8) ** Lupton, Mary Jane (Greenwood Press)
 * 9) ** Sturges, Fiona (The Independent)
 * 10) ** Braxton, Joanne M (Oxford Press)
 * 11) ** Long, Richard (Smithsonian)
 * 12) ** Smith, Candace (Booklist)
 * 13) ** Gillespie, Marcia Ann et al. (Random House)
 * 14) ** Harris, Dana (Variety)
 * 15) ** Eby, Margaret (New York Daily News)
 * 16) ** Metzler, Natasha T. (Fox News)
 * 17) ** Norton, Jerry (Reuters)
 * 18) ** (Poetry Foundation)
 * 19) ** Als, Hilton (The New Yorker)
 * 20) ** Sarler, Carol (University Press)
 * 21) ** (British Broadcasting Corporation)
 * 22) ** Evaristo, Bernardine (The Observer)
 * 23) ** Erdrich, Heid (Star Tribune)
 * 24) * Does the author have a Wikipedia article?:
 * 25) * What are the author's academic credentials and professional experience?:
 * 26) * What else has the author published?:
 * 27) * Is the author, or this work, cited in other reliable sources? In academic works?:
 * 28) Check for the publication (WP:RSVETTING):  ✅
 * 29) * Angelou, Maya (Random House)
 * 30) * Gillespie, Marcia Ann et al (Random House)
 * 31) * Lupton, Mary Jane (Greenwood Press)
 * 32) ** Sturges, Fiona (The Independent)
 * 33) ** Braxton, Joanne M (Oxford Press)
 * 34) ** Long, Richard (Smithsonian)
 * 35) ** Smith, Candace (Booklist)
 * 36) ** Gillespie, Marcia Ann et al. (Random House)
 * 37) ** Harris, Dana (Variety)
 * 38) ** Eby, Margaret (New York Daily News)
 * 39) ** Metzler, Natasha T. (Fox News)
 * 40) ** Norton, Jerry (Reuters)
 * 41) ** (Poetry Foundation)
 * 42) ** Als, Hilton (The New Yorker)
 * 43) ** Sarler, Carol (University Press)
 * 44) ** (British Broadcasting Corporation)
 * 45) ** Evaristo, Bernardine (The Observer)
 * 46) ** Erdrich, Heid (Star Tribune)
 * 47) Check for Self-published sources (WP:SPS):

✅

Check for inline citations WP:MINREF: ✅


 * 1) Check for Direct quotations:  ✅
 * 2) * "what are possibly the final blanks in Angelou's eventful life".[1]
 * 3) * "without a doubt, ... America's most visible black woman autobiographer".[2]
 * 4) * "a major autobiographical voice of the time".[3]
 * 5) * "as a street-smart, caring woman who shaped the author's life and legacy by her words and example".[4]
 * 6) * "a profoundly moving tale of separation and reunion, and an ultimately optimistic portrait of the maternal bond".[1]
 * 7) * "a work of art that eludes description", "pioneers of self-exposure" [13]
 * 8) * "tell the truth as a writer" and to "be honest about it".[14]
 * 9) * "what are possibly the final blanks in Angelou's eventful life".[1]
 * 10) * "touched upon but never fully described"[4]
 * 11) * "who generously taught me how to be a mother" … "one of the most courageous and generous men I know".[18]
 * 12) * "who was to remain a startling beauty",[20]
 * 13) * "a seriously ugly meeting".[15]
 * 14) * "In our family, for some unknown reason, we consider it an honor to run a bath, to put in bubbles and good scents for another person".[21]
 * 15) * "She manages to fully reveal that national sore without picking at it, a neat trick that...requires considerable restraint and her own steely goodwill".[27]
 * 16) * "a highbrow literary audience", but for "readers as open, playful and straightforward as herself".[27]
 * 17) * "speaking in the first-person singular talking about the first-person plural, always saying I meaning 'we'".[12]
 * 18) * "diverge from the conventional notion of autobiography as truth".[35]
 * 19) * "the sometimes slippery notion of truth in nonfiction" and memoirs.[38]
 * 20) * "Sometimes I make a diameter from a composite of three or four people, because the essence in only one person is not sufficiently strong to be written about."[39]
 * 21) * "One can assume that 'the essence of the data' is present in Angelou's work".[40]
 * 22) * "fictionalizes, to enhance interest".[40]
 * 23) * "Time races through this narrative".[27]
 * 24) * "that focus makes this a distinct addition to Angelou's autobiographical writings".[42]
 * 25) * "will be rewarded with a more complete picture of her life", while new readers "will discover a well-crafted and insightful introduction to the author".[17]
 * 26) * "As in her previous books, these tales are told with clear-sightedness and an absence of self-pity, and they are no less grim for their familiarity. Angelou has never been one for florid prose, and here she maintains a precise and economical style which makes these bleak moments more vivid, like a film from which you can't look away".[1]
 * 27) * "are delivered without much amplification or further reference".[27]
 * 28) * "tell the human truth" … "It may take an hour to get into it, but once I'm in it—ha! It's so delicious!" … "telling the truth".[46]
 * 29) * "a slight, anecdotal and badly edited book that rehashes stories from previous memoirs". … "a ground-breaking triumph".[47]
 * 30) * "rather constructs a portrait of self via details of her relationship to the mother who abandoned her and with whom she reunited as a teenager" … "very simply written", and calls her tone "mostly light, even sweet, filled with affection for her younger self" … "presents Angelou’s life path scattered with enormous obstacles endured and conquered through knowledge of self and a singular brand of mother love".[48]
 * 31) * "The lessons and love presented here will speak to those trying to make their way in the world".[41] … "hard-won love for her extraordinary mother" … "as extraordinarily self-aware, liberated from what others might think, and independent beyond any feminist of her era" and "the stuff of fiction but real and responsible in unexpected ways for the gift of her talented daughter".[48]
 * 32) * "as a street-smart, caring woman who shaped the author's life and legacy by her words and example".[4]
 * 33) * "loving recollection of a complicated relationship" and a "remarkable and deeply revealing chronicle of love and healing".[16]
 * 34) * "a beautiful tribute to Baxter's independent, vibrant, and courageous spirit".[42]
 * 35) * "less rounded, less interesting, more sanctified and less credible" than Angelou describes her elsewhere.[47]
 * 36) * "a profoundly moving tale of separation and reunion, and an ultimately optimistic portrait of the maternal bond" … "Angelou's casual overturning of the idea of the mother who abandons her children as monstrous and inhumane" … "have seemingly been passed on to her daughter".[1]
 * 37) * "halting steps" … "an account of forgiveness" … "just revealing enough, and pretty irresistible".[27]
 * 38) * "Like her mother expected from her, Angelou expects her readers to move past their resentments and "whatever was unbearable". Sayers also calls both Baxter and Angelou "a Large Dramatic Presence", and says that Angelou matches her mother's spirit." ( I guess it’s also from source 27. Can you move that citation towards the end of the para? )
 * 39) * "trademark good humor and fierce optimism".[27]
 * 40) * "cuts to the chase with compression and simplicity", and that it contains a "calypso smoothness, flurries and showers of musicality between the moments of wickedness". Kirkus also calls the book a "tightly strung, finely tuned memoir".[15]
 * 41) * "in her characteristic slow and thoughtful tones, and with careful enunciation". Although some of her anecdotes are painful to hear, Angelou is "unquestionably honest". Smith also states, "Although her voice doesn't show much outward emotion, her words are so powerful and the stories so fascinating that we remain riveted".[4]
 * 42) * "a story of redemption" and "a tender read and a lovely tribute,[43] anticipates that Angelou's readers would delight in it. Russo predicts that due to Angelou's popularity and "approachable writing", the book would have wide appeal for many readers.[42] ( I think a quote is missing before [43] )
 * 43) Check for Likely to be challenged:  ✅
 * 44) Check for Contentious material about living persons (WP:BLP):  NA


 * c. No original research: ✅

✅


 * 1) Check for primary sources (WP:PRIMARY):  ✅
 * 2) Check for synthesis (WP:SYN):  ✅
 * 3) Check for original images (WP:OI):  ✅

3: Broad in its coverage

✅


 * 1) Check for Article scope as defined by reliable sources:
 * 2) Check for The extent of the subject matter in these RS:
 * 3) Check for Out of scope:
 * 4) Check for The range of material that belongs in the article:
 * 5) Check for All material that is notable is covered:
 * 6) Check for All material that is referenced is covered:
 * 7) Check for All material that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope is covered:
 * 8) Check for The most general scope that summarises essentially all knowledge:
 * 9) Check for Stay on topic and no wandering off-topic (WP:OFFTOPIC):

✅


 * 1) Check for Readability issues (WP:LENGTH):
 * 2) Check for Article size (WP:TOO LONG!):

4: Neutral

✅

4. Fair representation without bias: ✅


 * 1) Check for POV (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 2) Check for naming (WP:POVNAMING):  ✅
 * 3) Check for structure (WP:STRUCTURE):  ✅
 * 4) Check for Due and undue weight (WP:DUE):  ✅
 * 5) Check for Balancing aspects (WP:BALASPS):  ✅
 * 6) Check for Giving "equal validity" (WP:VALID):  ✅
 * 7) Check for Balance (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 8) Check for Impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL):  ✅
 * 9) Check for Describing aesthetic opinions (WP:SUBJECTIVE):  ✅
 * 10) Check for Words to watch (WP:YESPOV):  ✅
 * 11) Check for Attributing and specifying biased statements (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV):  ✅
 * 12) Check for Fringe theories and pseudoscience (WP:PSCI):  None
 * 13) Check for Religion (WP:RNPOV):  None

5: Stable: No edit wars, etc: Yes

6: Images ✅ (NFC with a valid FUR) (PD)

✅

6: Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: ✅


 * 1) Check for copyright tags (WP:TAGS):  ✅
 * 2) * Image 1 (Mom & Me & Mom cover.jpg): This image is of book cover(s), and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover(s) or the publisher of the book(s). It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers (1) to illustrate an article discussing the book in question, and (2) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement.
 * 3) * Image 2 (Angelou Obama.jpg): This image or video is a work of an employee of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, taken or made as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image or video is in the public domain.
 * 4) Check for copyright status:  ✅ (Non-free content) (PD)
 * 5) Check for non-free content (WP:NFC):  ✅ (Yes)
 * 6) Check for valid fair use rationales (WP:FUR):  ✅ (valid)
 * 7) * Source (WP:NFCC): (Screenshot from the TV show)
 * 8) * Use in article (WP:NFCC): Mom & Me & Mom
 * 9) * Purpose of use in article (WP:NFCC): to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question.
 * 10) * Replaceable? (WP:NFCC): n.a. (Since it's a copyrighted, there are no free alternatives available.)
 * 11) * Minimal use (WP:NFCC): Image will be used for one article, as an illustration of the work in question. The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original book cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork. (Low resolution)

6: Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: ✅


 * 1) Check for image relevance (WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE):  ✅
 * 2) * Image 1 (Mom & Me & Mom cover.jpg): Relevant to the article
 * 3) * Image 2 (Angelou Obama.jpg): Relevant to the article
 * 4) Check for Images for the lead (WP:LEADIMAGE):  ✅
 * 5) * Image 1 (Mom & Me & Mom cover.jpg): Appropriate & Representative
 * 6) Check for suitable captions (WP:CAPTION):  ✅
 * 7) * Caption 1 - "The hardcover version" (succinct and informative)
 * 8) * Caption 2 - "President Barack Obama presenting Angelou with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, 2011" (succinct and informative)

Wow! My heart got a bit heavy after reading this article on Angelou and her struggles. The prose quality in particular is meticulous and engrossing. It has been fantastic in all your articles. I’m inspired a lot by your conscientiousness. As per the above checklist, I do have some insights that I think will be useful in improving the article:
 * Wow, thanks for the kind words. She has been through a lot, but she's always inspirational.  My heart is heavy because I suspect that it's the last article about her autobiographies that I will write, but then again, I thought that about her sixth.
 * -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Check for clarity and flow: (I suggest you reword the following. Please feel free to disagree.)
 * 1) "The book, which was published shortly before Mother's Day and Angelou's 85th birthday, and for the first time, focuses on Angelou's relationship with her mother, Vivian Baxter." (Can you rephrase it to boost the flow? For example: "Published shortly before Mother's Day and Angelou's 85th birthday, the book for the first time focuses on Angelou's relationship with her mother, Vivian Baxter.")
 * 2) * I don't believe in starting sentences with verbs, so I separated the phrases into different sentences. Is it better now?
 * 3) ** "The book was published shortly before Mother's Day and Angelou's 85th birthday. It focuses, for the first time in her books, on Angelou's relationship with her mother, Vivian Baxter." Perfect!
 * 4) "The book explains her mother's behavior, especially her abandonment of Angelou and her older brother when they were young children, and fill in "what are possibly the final blanks in Angelou's eventful life"." (young children – infants? Do you think mentioning age would be better here?) (Can you rephrase it without too much "her"?)
 * 5) * Fixed by replacing the "her"s with either "Baxter" or "Angelou".
 * 6) ** OK.
 * 7) "The book also chronicles Angelou's initial uncomfortable reunion and eventual reconciliation with Baxter." (Can it be a bit easy to follow?)
 * 8) * Sure, cut out some words.
 * 9) ** OK.
 * 10) "Angelou was well-respected as a poet and writer, and was one of the first African American female writers to openly discuss her life through the literary form of the autobiography." (Can you simplify it?)
 * 11) * Did some more cutting.
 * 12) ** OK.
 * 13) " It was completed 11 years after the publication of her previous autobiography, A Song Flung Up to Heaven (2002), which was considered the final installment at the time of its publication,[5] and over thirty years after she wrote her first autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969)." (I’d recommend that you break the sentence into simpler sentences to make it easier to follow.)
 * 14) * But if I did that, there'd be a choppiness problem. How about if I put the final installment stuff in a note?
 * 15) ** "It was completed 11 years after the publication of her previous autobiography, A Song Flung Up to Heaven (2002),[note 1] and over thirty years after she wrote her first autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969)." Perfect!
 * Can you provide inline citations for the following "Like her mother expected from her, Angelou expects her readers to move past their resentments and "whatever was unbearable". Sayers also calls both Baxter and Angelou "a Large Dramatic Presence", and says that Angelou matches her mother's spirit." (I guess it’s also from source 27. Can you move that citation towards the end of the para?)
 * 1) * I put the ref after the quote and the sentence, since I suspect that other reviewers would prefer that. (I know, if I suspected that, why didn't I do it in the first place?  To see what I could get away with, I suppose, which I also know if a little evil.  Ah well.) ;)
 * "a story of redemption" and "a tender read and a lovely tribute,[43] anticipates that Angelou's readers would delight in it. Russo predicts that due to Angelou's popularity and "approachable writing", the book would have wide appeal for many readers.[42] ( I think a quote is missing before [43] )
 * 1) * Right on! Good catch, thanks.
 * 1) * Right on! Good catch, thanks.

Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Christine, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were very helpful. Thanks for them, and for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Christine, very much for your diligence in writing such great articles. --  Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Christine, I need your help in honing my assessment skills. So if you don't mind, I'd like to request you to leave your candid feedback about this review which would help me improve as a reviewer. Thank you for your time! -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Promoting the article to GA status. -- Seabuckthorn   ♥  22:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)