Talk:Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry like Christmas/Archive 1

Word of warning and advice
To all present and future editors of this article: a persistent issue that seems to come up with the wikifying of this article should be noted so that it could be avoided. As you may notice, the title of this book, as is practice in the sources that discuss it, is shortened to "Singin' and Swingin'". When you correctly try to italicize it, since it's part of the title of a book, however, be careful, because the code inserted will change the text that follows it into bold. There are two ways to avoid this. You can either put a space between the hash mark and italics, like this: Singin' and Swingin' , or you can render it like this: Singin' and Swingin', with the italics placed before the hash mark. (Please go into edit mode to see the actual rendering.) Notice, though, that neither "trick" works if the shortened title comes at the end of a sentence, before a period; you'll also notice that, when I wrote this article, I avoided doing that, and I suggest the same for the future. --Christine (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Update to above: User:Finetooth has come up with an elegant solution, one that never even occurred to me: place a nbsp before the quote. Sometimes the best solutions truly are the simplest, ones that cause one to hit oneself over the head and go, "Duh!  Why didn't I think of that!"  Thanks to FT. --Christine (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "poetry": From Gather Together in My Name:  From Maya Angelou:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have fixed this error; it occurred when transferring content from userspace. --Christine (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Left-over FAC
So much for my goal of one FAC!;) Seriously, I always learn from FACs, whether it's ways to improve my writing, or procedural things. This time, the procedural thing is to carve out plenty of time, and then double it.  I suspect that this would've passed if I had the time and work/family commitments hadn't gotten in the way.  Ah well; I've never had an FAC pass on the second time, either.  Thanks for all the input and comments and feedback.  I've cut-and-paste the comments I wasn't able to address here so I can work on them before re-submitting. --Christine (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment I don't see the issues mentioned earlier in the review on a quick scan. It's a quick read, which I like. I'll revisit later today with a closer read-through in case I've missed something. Definitely leaning support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Found some rough patches, mostly in the lead.
 * Repetition in the first two sentences > try to tighten up a little
 * Looks like User:Steve has resolved these issues with the lead. --Christine (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 *  The book, which includes a wide geographical range, covers most of Angelou's twenties > the book doesn't literally cover wide geographical range or Angelou's twenties. Try something like: In the book, which spans the time period when Angelou was in her twenties, Angelou presents a wide area of geography (this is my no means perfect, just an example)
 * the rest of the sentence mentioned above is very long. Try to separate.
 * See above comment.


 * ' 'Swingin' and Singin' continues to examine'' > the book doesn't examine. Try something like: In Swingin' and Singin' Angelou examines....
 * Fixed. --Christine (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * especially in Angelou's depictions of her travels, which take up 40 percent of the book > needs to be reworded. How about: Approximately 40 percent of the book consists of Angelou's travels .... ?
 * Not so sure I like my version any better: Her depictions of her travels, which take up 40 percent of the book, have roots in the African American slave narrative. --Christine (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * She goes into the hospital for an appendectomy, and announces her desire to return to her grandmother in Stamps, but Tosh informs her that Annie has died. > do we know why he hadn't told her earlier? When did the grandmother die in relation to when she had the appendectomy?
 * Ok, done. Hope it's clearer. --Christine (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * her career begins to take off > too literal. Needs to be reworded.
 * I simplified the language and made some cuts to clarify.
 * Should Whites be capitalized? (I'd tend to say no, but could be convinced otherwise).
 * To be honest, I'm not so sure. I don't think there's a real convention in WP.  Initially, I had it non-capitalized, but another editor suggested the change.  I could be wrong, but I think it was Scartol, whose opinion about such things I respect, so I followed the suggestion.  The convention we seem to be following in this article is that all races are capitalized.  I think that's reasonable, but like you, I can be swayed with a good argument.  I'm not really sure it matters all that much.
 * Nice informative article. I enjoyed reading it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the review. As per your comments above, yes, it's quick, but I think that it has a place, even as an FA.  It's no Donner Party, that's for certain. --Christine (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You've addressed my concerns above. I'll need another read through to determine whether anything else jumps out at me, but won't have time until tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no problem, take your time. I'm taking Charles Edwards' advice and waiting a few weeks before I re-submit it, anyway. --Christine (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Review by Charles Edward
A few comments from me here. :) The article is interesting, but still has a few issues. I've outlined them below.
 * General
 * "It made her "without a doubt, ... America's most visible black woman autobiographer"." - this should probably be attributed inline
 * Done. --Christine (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Travel is a common theme in American autobiography as a whole; it is something of a national myth to Americans as a people." - The last half seems just a little POV to me. You should probably attribute that inline.
 * Got it. --Christine (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "...Angelou works out her relationships with the White world..." - I am not sure "White" should be capitalized here. If it is in the source though, its ok.
 * "...with fellow Black cast..." same here, black should probably be lower case, unless it is a last name (but I don't think that is what is meant there)
 * See above regarding capitalizing White and Black. Is there a WP convention about this somewhere?  If so, could you please point it out?  It's my understanding that it's a editorial call.  If so, I think that it should remain, because the terms are cultural labels, so they should be capitalized. --Christine (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several other instances where "White" and "Black" are capitalized, please review each of these to make sure it is appropriate, they should only be capitalized when being used as a proper name.
 * Prose
 * "...it marked the first time a..." how about just "...it was the first time a..."
 * Okay, I tend to get a little flowery (although this isn't all that much) when I write about literature. I know, I know, this is an encyclopedia, so thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Angelou's first two autobiographies, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Gather Together in My Name, recounted her early life, from the age of four when Caged Bird begins, to the end of her teenage years at the end of Gather Together." - this is a little tricky to understand. how about "Angelou's first two autobiographies were I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings and Gather Together in My Name. They recounted her early life, starting when she was age of four and progressing through her her teenage years."
 * I don't see it, but okay. I edited your version a bit, to "...starting when she was the age of four, and progressed through her teenage years". --Christine (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Through the writing of her life stories," - how about - "Through writing her life story," - I am not sure a person can have more than one life story, unless perhaps they were reincarnated. :)
 * Very true, but one can have a lot of stories about one's life. That's certainly true about MA.  I vote for keeping this as is.


 * "Angelou changed the verb endings in her title to parallel the black vernacular and, because music was one of the book's themes, to evoke the sound of a blues singer." - how about - " Because music was one of the book's themes, Angelou changed the verb endings in her title to better reflect black dialect and evoke the sound of a blues singer."
 * Done. --Christine (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reference 27 & 28 each have their page number linked, but others from the same source do not? Why? I'd suggest removing those links.
 * Because they don't appear in Google books. It's often that case that Google will offer a section of a book but not all of it.  I linked what was available, so people can go look at it. --Christine (talk) 05:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref # 9, 31, & 62 are the same and should be combined.
 * So they are, or now, were. Thanks for the catch. --Christine (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In "O'Neale, Sondra" and "Cudjoe, Selwyn R" references, there is a period in "N.Y", but no such periods in the other references states. This should be uniform.
 * Thanks again, another catch. --Christine (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Citations needed
 * "Angelou was one of the first African American female writers to publicly discuss her personal life, and one of the first to use herself as a central character in her books, something she continued in Singin' and Swingin'."
 * "Critic Mary Jane Lupton insisted that the title, one of the many similes Angelou uses, was tied to the book's themes. Lupton also considered the title "ironic"; Angelou used "old-fashioned" and "positive" words—singin' and swingin' —that reflected several meanings related to the text" -  quotes without citations
 * "Not all is "merry like Christmas", however; the book is also marked by negative events: her painful marriage and divorce, the death of her grandmother, and her long separation from her son." uncited quote
 * "McPherson calls Singin' and Swingin' "Angelou's praisesong" to the opera" - uncited quote - I note there is a cite for this in the lead though.
 * "Motherhood was a "prevailing theme" throughout Angelou's autobiographies." - uncited quote
 * "...although she preferred the rhythm of Caged Bird, found Singin' and Swingin' "very professional, even-toned, and ... quite engaging"." uncited quote
 * I have fixed the above issues (for the most part), but not without pause. See, I don't that it's always necessary to have an inline ref for every single quote or thought.  I think that the reader is smarter than that.  For example, the paragraph about the similes.  I think that the reader's gonna know that all those words and phrases surrounded by quotation marks were originally Lupton's thoughts.  As it is now, the five [14]s in the paragraph look ridiculous, but I changed it because I believe in following the suggestions of my reviewers.  BTW, the "merry like Christmas" isn't a quote; it's an evocation of the title. --Christine (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * References
 * I've always been somewhat neutral on using Primary sources for establishing plots. There are a few paragraphs in the plot sections though that have no citations at the end. You should probably put some there.
 * I'm not sure what you mean here. What other, non-primary sources would one use when establishing a book's plot?  And every quote included had a page number referenced, so I'm a little confused about that, too. --Christine (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alt text present
 * Except for the lead image
 * Got it, thanks. --Christine (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the above issues, including removing the Purple Onion image as suggested. I think that I have a solution to the lack-of-images problem I have with this article, so I'm gonna try it out and see if I can get away with it. ;) --Christine (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Images
 * File:Porgy and Bess1.jpg has not date
 * File:Angelou3.jpg is non-free. It lacks source, date, publisher, etc. Fair use rationale is acceptable
 * File:Purpleonion.jpg is also non-free. It lacks a good fair use rationale in my opinion. It should probably be removed from the article.

Oppose Overall this article is pretty good. I pointed out the most obvious prose issues, but there are a number more. This article could still do with a fair copyedit. The number of uncited quotes, the prose, and the usage of the the purple onion image make me have to oppose for now. None of these issues are hard to address though, and if you can I'd be glad to change to support. Great job so far, I see you've put alot of work into the article. Keep up the good work and you will have a feature article on your hands soon enough! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 14:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Charles, and thanks for the review. No hard feelings about the oppose, really; I sincerely want this article to be worthy of the subject, so I appreciate the feedback, even if I didn't agree with everything you said.  Are you sure it needs another copyedit, though?  This article has been through a GAN, a peer review, and now this very thorough FAC by some good folks.  I'm thinking about resubmitting it; it came so close to passing.  I think that if I had given myself more time, I would've been able to address these issues more quickly and it would've passed.  What do you think? --Christine (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Christine! You have certainly addressed all the issues I raised, and I would be happy to support this article in a future FAC. I do think the article could benefit from a final copy edit, I find that no matter how many times I read an article I find ways to improve the prose. I also appreciate your feedback to my feedback, I see I was mistaken on a few items. The citations and prose were my primary concern. If there were more reviewers at FAC it would have probably passed last time - its a little unfair to editors to not get much a review after a month. Happy editting! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 12:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments as requested
Hey, Christine. I don't have a lot to add to the article, no questions so that's good. Just a preference that both black and white should not be capitalized unless the source quote does it. And perhaps a very brief description of Porgy and Bess to let readers who are unfamiliar with it know why it might be both beautiful and terrible to black performers: the themes of drugs, alcohol, and shiftlessness, the "darkie" vernacular, etc., plus the good parts to it. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, pal, high praise coming from you. I'll go through the article and make sure that capitalization follows the source quote.  I have a question, though: in all other uses, should I capitalize when the reference where I've gotten the information capitalizes?  My tendency is to choose one and go with it.  The problem is that it's not standardized in the literature.  I mean, should "white" be capitalized?  White folk isn't one culture like Black is, but not all writers capitalize the word "black".  That's why, for purposes of this article (and across all MA articles, for that matter), it should be standardized.  Ah, but that begs the question: What does Dr. Angelou use?  Maybe the usage in these articles should parallel hers.  I did a cursory search through her autobiographies, and it looks like she capitalizes "Black".   And what does she do with the word "white"?  She does not capitalize it, how interesting is that.  So it looks like I'm going to have to go back through all her articles and make changes to reflect that.  Ouch.  And you've complained at people for making you think, Moni! ;)


 * Yes, that's a good idea about P&B, so good I can't believe I didn't think of it. Have you ever really listened to a soundtrack of the show?  It's so beautiful, it's painful.  I recently listened to a version by Ray Charles and Cleo Laine on Napster, and it was excruciating.  But in a good way.  Again, thanks.  After I make these changes, do you think it'll be ready to be re-submitted to FAC? Christine (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Four Award
Not to brag or nuthin', but I thought I'd put this here. ;) Christine (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
I was delighted to read this article about this wonderful woman! Amandajm (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Libreoffice?
why is Libreoffice in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henny moore (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Spammers sometimes edit Wikipedia. It has been removed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)