Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X/GA1

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

Hey, guys. I'm going to start the review. For an article of this size, for this book, it'll take a couple days. Can you tell me if you want this to go to FAC at some point? Sometimes I write articles just wanting them to get to GA, thinking I'll work on the FA stuff later if at all. If it's going to FAC soon, I'll take that into consideration when making my comments. Or I can put pre-FAC comments in a separate section. Let me know.

Reviewer: Moni3 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how long the usual FA process takes. My hope is that we can get it through FA and front page it on Feb 21.  In that case pre-FAC comments might be great. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. In that case, my comments and whatnot will be considerably more picky. What fun. If your article is as good as you can possibly get it, from nomination to promotion, it should take two or three weeks. If there are problems or no one reviews the article, it might take four. After that, however, the article will be archived for you to make improvements. You can renominate in two weeks' time. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a few copy edits to smooth the language in places. If I compromise accuracy, please compromise by keeping the flow of the sentences but fixing the facts that I may have muddled. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time Moni3, and yes please, be picky, we want the article to be a worthy FAC candidate after the review. — GabeMc (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Sources:
 * Your sources look fine and easily pass GA. Being no expert on Malcolm X or Alex Haley, however, I can't tell if they are exhaustive or comprehensive of everything that has been written about the book. That will be a consideration at FAC.
 * The GoogleBooks links...I'd lose them. Is there a particular reason you linked them? Print sources are fine and the ISBN numbers are linked, and GoogleBoooks only lets readers see parts of the books, so... I'm not fond of the links in the References section

Curiosities
 * Are there no external links or See also articles? I find it odd.

Summary of the Autobiography of the material
 * Should it be Summary of The Autobiography'? Sources will determine this. I haven't seen them.
 * I'm a fan of inline citations, but not to the point of excess. So it's safe to say that for It begins with an incident during Malcolm X's mother's pregnancy and describes his childhood in Michigan,[1] the death of his father under dubious circumstances,[1] there are two facts cited in the same sentence before the period. Some readers find the numbers distracting, so keep it as neat as possible. If you can shift the cites to the end of the sentence, bravo. It's safe to keep one source for a sentence. Rather silly to use the same source to cite two facts in a row in the same sentence.
 * Some will complain about overlinking for major cities like Chicago, Boston, and New York. Unless these are integral to the material.
 * Watch sentence start variations. Make sure the sentences flow nicely. Too many sentences starting the same way dulls the reader. I changed several instances in this section.
 * The last two paragraphs in this section: I think you need to make a distinction between how, err, normal autobiographies are constructed, and how this one is. I know there are accuracy issues involved. Can you start with something like "Instead of a traditional autobiography, in which the subject recalls significant portions of his life, The Autobiography of Malcolm X is a didactic essay in the form of a spiritual conversion narrative which outlines Malcolm X's philosophy...." I think you need to make clear here that either Malcolm X or Alex Haley intended this to be a teaching tool. Don't depend on links to didacticism to make that point for you.
 * I think the last two paragraphs address the format of the book, and thus should be combined. But if you have better reasons to keep them separate, you know...let me know.
 * One of the problems in using expert opinion is that their views are so unique that they have to be explained. Here: Malcolm X's conversion narrative that exploited the "autobiographical fiction of the completed self",[8] or in the words of writer Alex Gillespie, "the illusion of the finished and unified personality" are two descriptions of expert opinion on the format of this book, and neither make much sense to the casual reader. Can you explain this for some poor 11th grader? Similarly, what made Augustine of Hippo's writing unique? I'm not looking for full paragraphs, just clauses: the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative...which is demonstrated by this unique characteristic...
 * Similar, Icarus myth. Dude made wings and flew too close to the sun despite that his dad told him not to. How does this apply to Malcolm X, or the book about his life?

Construction:
 *  and was credited in much the same way ghostwriters are credited, when they are credited. Italics? What's up with that? If that's a source's italics, it should be in quotes. If not, just remove or replace with "if".
 * It seems by the 2nd paragraph in this section and by the extensive discussion on the talk page that there is some considerble material addressing how to label Haley's contribution to the work. If so, I think a topic sentence would do fine here: According to multiple scholars, Haley's contribution to the work is unique in that several sources dedicate discussion to how it should be characterized. According to E. Victor Wolfenstein, affirmed by Dyson, Stone and others,... 

Narrative presentation
 * Call me kooky, but I like this section a lot. I have no suggestions. That does not mean someone at FAC won't want it rewritten for some reason, but I find it very well done.

Malcolm X as author
 * This is only because I copy-edited and made suggestions for two articles about books by Maya Angelou. In the articles for Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, and I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, there is some discussion about how oral history or autobiography was redefined by Angelou, and the material here about Haley is somewhat similar although Haley's book was published before Angelou's. Not that two examples make a trend, but the similarities in the discussions here are interesting. Are there discussions that bracket Haley with Angelou and perhaps other black writers in creating a specific form of autobiography that is employed to tell black history?
 * Sometimes it's not fair to get one editor to influence an article. I don't like the phrase "is of the opinion" and there's really no rational reason why.
 * Would it be safe to say that "fiction of the completed self" means what Malcolm X wishes he could be, or how he should be remembered in death? Perhaps the idealized version of himself? Would you feel safe enough in the source material to clarify that? Add it? I think it would be helpful.
 * Because you'll get readers here who are not familiar with Malcolm X's life and politics if the article goes to the main page, I think you need to add here that Malcolm X went through changes in his beliefs as to how integrated or segregated American society should be. Maybe he couldn't even chart it. Biographer opinion will do; perhaps something like "Malcolm X in 1962 made a statement about segregating the races in the U.S. as to ...'Whatever Malcolm X said', but by 1965, he began speaking about..." You know. I hope. If not, I can explain more clearly.
 * So then I'm a bit confused because this last paragraph is not clear. Was Haley himself opposed to integration the way Martin Luther King promoted? Why would a Malcolm X who softened his stance on integration before his death not be idealized?

Malcolm X and Alex Haley as collaborators
 * and that it was his responsibility as autobiographer, Again, the italics for emphasis, quotes, etc. If they're not a source's italics, change them.
 * life account "distorted and diminished" by the "process of selection" is this about race in America (as in, how kids get the idealism beaten out of them, and specifically how Malcolm X did, because of the racial caste system in the U.S.) or the general process of selection that one goes through as one gets older?
 * Blockquotes per the MOS should be reserved for quotes taking up four or more lines in the edit box. If you have a one-line quote that you think should be emphasized, consider a quote box off to the side.
 * As per the previous section, maybe a sentence to introduce the rift between Elijah Muhammed that eventually led to Malcolm X's assassination is appropriate in the second paragraph of this section. Otherwise, folks unfamiliar with Malcolm X's life and the circumstances surrounding his assassination aren't going to be keyed in here.
 * Did Malcolm X know that his name choice would lead to difficulty in wiki-code? Probably. I can imagine what pain in the rear it was to type Malcolm & n b s p ; X every time and not refer to his last name.
 * The lack of topic sentences in places makes the reader work harder to try to understand what you and the sources are trying to say. It's not a difficult thing to resolve, but it becomes apparent in these paragraphs that deeply discuss the authorial nature of the book. Specifically, the paragraph that begins Manning Marable, Professor and Founding Director of the Institute for Research make me wish for a topic sentence here. It's a trick for your readers. A topic sentence introduces them to what they are about to read, the quotes and sources give them the evidence, and the readers feel smarter for getting the point a lot faster.
 * I'm fixing misspellings in quotes. If I'm wrong and these folks actually spelled these words the way they appeared before I fixed them, do they need sics?
 * Watch this section in particular for excessive citing using the same source multiple times in a sentence or in a row. There are no hard and fast rules (I think, you know, these things pop up out of nowhere sometimes) for how often to cite something, but it's ok to use one citation for two or more sentences as long as the citation is accurate to the material in the source.
 * I just had to look this up for myself today, so please check through the article to make sure African-American is hyphenated in every instance.
 * a disjoint system of data mining that included scribbled notes on scrap paper, in-depth interviews, and long "free style" discussions. Marable writes, "Malcolm also had a habit of scribbling notes to himself as he spoke." Is there a particular reason the note-scribbling is mentioned twice in a sentence? This sounds like a bitchy question, but I don't really know. If not, would you consider removing the quote?

Publication, sales, and critical reception
 * The Autobiography of Malcolm X, would eventually sell over six million copies. It is clearer to make all claims in past tense, so this should be changed to "eventually sold more than six million copies". I'd change it, but I don't know if that's within a particular time span.
 * But in the next paragraph there is The New York Times reported that six million copies of the book had been sold by 1977. Is this sentence redundant? Can you combine them? Is there any reason to repeat the 6 million number?
 * In 1992, sales had climbed 300% from their 1989 level You know you said be picky, so...wee... Either the "had" should be removed or the sentence should start "By 1992..." I'm not sure what the source says, so I'm going to leave it to you guys.
 * Here's a thing: in literary criticism, for some reason all the "Critic Joe Blow wrote" should be present tense. That's a literary thing and quite frankly, makes not a whole lot of sense to me, but I've written a couple articles about books and stuff, so I know it will come up at FAC. I changed one in my copy edit, but kept it past tense, just not to mess up the tense in the paragraph.
 * Is there not more about the reception the book had when it was released in 1965? I'm very surprised at that. Malcolm X was a lightning rod for controversy so I can imagine just about every stuff shirt critic wanted to snort at his book. A university library would have Book Review or some such that goes back to the 20s.

Missing chapters
 * one of the reasons the Nation of Islam and the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to silence Malcolm X Information about the FBI watching Malcolm X has not yet been introduced to the article. This is going to need an explanation as readers unfamiliar with his life won't know just how controversial he really was.
 * By this point it should be clear what the differences between a "committed integrationist" and an "integrationist" are. Is this in reference to American racial issues or the sects of Islam? That's not clear in this paragraph without some background info.
 * In April 2010, the forthcoming publication of the missing chapters, with a foreword by Malcolm X's daughter Ilyasah Shabazz, was announced. This is passive and should be changed to active. Does it mean "In April 2010 Publication Company X announced that another edition of The Autobiography of Malcolm X would be published with the missing chapters and have a foreword written by his daughter, Ilyasah Shabazz."?

Ok. This is the result of my first run-through. I think it deserves another read, which I will do in a couple days. I like to have discussions about changes with editors who are working on an article, so please feel free to comment below as you already started. Often I find what I didn't understand just has to be tweaked, or I just need to rephrase a request if you don't get it the first time around. However, for GA, the changes should be able to be made within 7 days. Do you think you can do that?

I think once you've made the bulk of the changes I'll read through it again. So far, I found it a very interesting read and it's clear a lot of work and thought has gone into the article. I read the book when I was in college (for fun, you know) and I may have a little bit of a functional working knowledge of Civil Rights issues in the 1960s. I don't know if that puts me at a disadvantage or not as a reviewer. Often, folks completely unfamiliar with a topic are better reviewers because they tell you when you need to explain something better. So, let me know if you need clarification on anything. --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to add to these as I go along. Please don't thread responses in between. It confuses the simple-minded folk like me. But I can get what you're trying to respond to. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

 * the gbooks links I think were added in so gabe malik and myself could each see what the sources were saying while we were discussing the content. I'll go through them and drop the links where there is no other/better identifying info. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Moni3 from Gabe, thanks for your time, great suggestions all, I did my best to fix what I could, and have addressed a few points below:
 * "I can't tell if they are exhaustive or comprehensive of everything that has been written about the book."
 * We gathered every source we could find, if you are aware of others please let us know.
 * This is a hard statement to prove, but apart from contemporary news, magazine, radio and television (which may or may not be significant) this article represents a comprehensive summary of scholarship on the book. Unfortunately most of the scholarly work comes in the form of edited volumes of essays, which helps insofar as the authors make comments or allude to other essays in the same volume, but it means that no essay really sets out to survey the literature and frame the debate as larger and intergenerational.  An article like that would cement my already pretty confident guess that we have covered most of the lit. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * After digging through newspaper archives I am more convinced that we have a comprehensive summary of sources. It is a little shocking to see Haley credited as "a negro author writing a biography of Malcolm X of the black muslims".  There might be some material in the alt press (e.g. Ebony, Village Voice, The Crisis), but we have most of the mainstream press.  I might include another NYT article, but that's about it. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "Are there no external links or See also articles? I find it odd."
 * I'm not opposed to them, feel free to add them as you see fit. (External Links added)


 * "Similar, Icarus myth. Dude made wings and flew too close to the sun despite that his dad told him not to. How does this apply to Malcolm X, or the book about his life?"
 * One of the chapters of the book is called Icarus, Stone, an autobiographical scholar said, "This motiff Haley expresses imagistically as the Icarus myth." Whether or not that comparison is accurate is another matter, but they do draw a comparison, unless I am reading too much into the sources.


 * "what made Augustine of Hippo's writing unique? I'm not looking for full paragraphs, just clauses: the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative...which is demonstrated by this unique characteristic..."
 * As far as Augustine and how he relates to Malcolm X, both lived hedonistic lives before being converted. Both confessed their sins. Both later fought against a religious group they had once been part of. Both gave speeches. But the sources don't explain any of that, so how do we incluude it and avoid original research? — GabeMc (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if the sources make these comparisons, I don't consider it original research to help your readers in relating what the sources mean by it: "the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative as they both relate the early lives of their subjects that were filled with hedonism, eventually changing (becoming ascetic?) for spiritual reasons" or some such. As for Icarus, it's ok that an expert makes the comparison, it's just not clear why he does. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great points, I see what you mean, and I did my best to fix it, feel free to copyedit said passage to your liking. — GabeMc (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Haley vs. Angelou
 * I don't think I can answer this completely, but some light can be shed from a source which we chose not to include in the article: Vulnerable Subjects: Ethics and Life Writing (most of the text is available on gbooks), a volume which explores the dynamics of autobiography where the subjects are not in complete control of the content. Couser's subjects are not exactly what we would call a good match with Malcolm X, they tended to be individuals who were not capable (in a broad sense) of reviewing the copy of their own autobiography.  A number of autobiographies and biographies of individuals are surveyed.  Some where the subjects are deceased, some where they are uninterested in the details, and some where the subjects are illiterate or not fluent in english.  These aren't the extent of Vulnerable Subjects; portions of the book are devoted to socio-medical discourse and critique.  But where there is relevance, Malcolm X and Haley show up as a contrast.  I'm not sure if there is a common thread between different manifestations of autobiographies.  What you are seeing may simply be a similarity in the merged fiction/non-fiction style of Haley and Angelou. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Moni3, for your time and suggestions.
 * Publication, sales, and critical reception
 * I've made appropriate changes to address your concerns.
 * I've tried to find reviews of the Autobiography, but I don't have access to a university library. Google News Archive helps a bit, but the few reviews I found there are behind paywalls.
 * Missing chapters
 * Unfortunately, the news about the publication of the "missing chapters" was sparse, but I managed to change it to the active voice.
 * Over the weekend, I'll work on providing more background on Malcolm X's life, so the shorthand in that section makes more sense. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this sentence: "Marable suggests that this project may have been one of the reasons the Nation of Islam and the Federal Bureau of Investigation wanted to silence Malcolm X." I tried to rewrite it so it wouldn't need background. If it still assumes too much knowledge on the part of readers, I think maybe it should be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Moni3, could you please strike comments that have been dealt with? I am having trouble figuring out which issues have been resolved and which need to be resolved before the 16th of October so the article willl pass GAN. Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * On the tense issue. Unless Gabe has changed it I'd suggest just leaving it as-is until FAC. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Malik changed it, at the suggestion of Moni3. — GabeMc (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I changed the verb tense in the book review section. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gravy. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the italics from the ghostwriter crediting bit and added/changed some topic sentences. More later. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of the Malcolm X as author section is referring to a sentence from the previous paragraph, namely "Further, according to Rampersad, many admirers of Malcolm X perceive "accomplished and admirable" figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and W.E.B. Du Bois inadequate to fully express black humanity as it struggles with oppression, "while Malcolm is seen as the apotheosis of black individual greatness...he is a perfect hero..." Malcolm was seen as a stronger "hero" figure because he demanded that African Americans be treated as humans without tempering this position with promises that blacks would be non-violent (since whites were certainly willing to use violence).  While true, this portrait is a little unfair to MLK (esp. The MLK who wrote the letter from a Birmingham jail).  It is this image that people held of Malcolm in contrast to other contemporary black leaders.  Haley attempted to soften this just as Malcolm pushed to accentuate it. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should go with your instinct, and if it bugs you, it needs editing, since you know the sources as well as anyone. — GabeMc (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is basically good now. I was just answering one of Moni's points but didn't point back to it very well. Protonk (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there is anything else that needs fixing for GAN? — GabeMc (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks quite good to me, but the 2nd paragraph in the summary section is kinda messy. We introduce a lot of names with/without preamble who will be introduced later more fully, and we spend a lot of time not summarizing the material.  I don't know quite what to do with it yet. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, it's a tuff one. I wish I was better at topic sentences. — GabeMc (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Italics outside of quotes should be taken out now. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If I see any I will edit them away. — GabeMc (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry I haven't been back for a bit. I was sick for a couple days. How you guys doing? About ready for the final go-over? --Moni3 (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. My only concern is the 2nd paragraph in the summary (of the material, not in the lede), which could do with some thinning out of names and what-not, but I don't think it is critical. Protonk (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh one other comment. I've tried to expunge some of this, but your comment "Sometimes it's not fair to get one editor to influence an article. I don't like the phrase "is of the opinion" and there's really no rational reason why" deserves a longer response.  Malcolm X: In Our Own Image and African-American Autobiography: A Collection of Critical Essays comprise core references for this article.  As they are edited volumes of essays, a lot of infra-textual (50 cents!) commentary goes on.  So when we say something like "Rampersad agrees w/ Wideman" and we cite a page number, we literally mean that in Rampersad's essay he makes a point to comment on Wideman's essay in the same volume.  We may lean on these comments too much, but most are cited to direct comparisons in the text. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, this is more idiosyncratic. I had an English teacher who hated the word "strive" in all its forms and forbade its use in any paper we submitted. I guess too many "reach for the stars" type missives to apathetic students finally wore her down. But that was her thing. For whatever reason, "is of the opinion" seems fussy and gah! irritating to me. Worse is my reaction to "opine", a word I want to shoot every time I see it. Every copy editor I've ever worked with on Wikipedia has some word or phrase they remove for personal reasons. --Moni3 (talk) 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, specifically "is of the opinion" I can agree with removing! I was just making a more general comment about the phrases like "is affirmed by" or "XYZ agrees with ABC" which seem editor inserted but really refer to comments between texts. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Expunged! Protonk (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm passing the article for GA, and I apologize for the lag. The article was GA-level when I came upon it the first time, but there is often a significant difference between GA and FA quality, especially for books. Before you take it to FAC, I strongly suggest taking care of the following:


 * The article is overlinked. Remove links to common terms that anyone would know, unless they are absolutely integral to the focus of the article. I'd lose the link to Africa, but keep Islam.
 * The reception section will have to be expanded for FAC, particularly for reviews of the book in 1965. I admit I would oppose it on that issue alone. If none of you has access to a university library, I suggest spending a day or two in one close by, or asking a Wikipedian who works on GA or FA-level book articles to help you.
 * Images ok (I'd fix the pixel size of Haley's image to make it the same size as the others), and the article is stable.
 * I found nothing else problematic. This article is very well-written and one that serves to improve Wikipedia's reputation. You all should be proud of yourselves for the work you put into it. --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moni3, for your valuable time and effort. The article is greatly improved due to your insights and suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)