Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song Flung Up to Heaven/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 User:Ian Rose 10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC).

A Song Flung Up to Heaven

 * Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's next in line. Actually, it's the last of her autobiographies that are expanded to this point, and ready to be reviewed. (There's one more, her 7th and most recent, Mom & Me & Mom, which just came out this year.) A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation: Thanks, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * "Angelou's long-time editor, Robert Loomis, agreed..." - source?
 * Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
 * FN33, 40: page(s)?
 * Hagen: which university press?
 * Don't mix templated and untemplated book citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All the above addressed, except for final one, which I think is a editing choice. When I use them, I don't use templates in the "Works cited" section because the standard book templates is Harvard style, which is different than the standard citation used for references.  If that's a problem, I can change the citation templates to untemplated, which has become my preference after most of the editing of this article occurred, anyway.  I also went through all the links and made sure they still work, which they do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine - otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (fair-use for infobox image, PD), sources and authors provided. Just two suggestions (both done):
 * File:Paul_Laurence_Dunbar.jpg => the caption is quite long and the 2 sentences are not well-connected to each other (the connection Dunbar to "bird as symbol" is somewhat missing). I'd remove the second sentence completely and include this information in the main text, if you think it's vital for this article.
 * quote box for Patricia Elam => quotes should be as brief as possible. The first part from "Billed as ..." to "Why the Caged Bird Sings, this new book" could be replaced with "... this new book" without loosing any context . GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Followed suggestions. Thanks, Joe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Support - but a few comments so you know I read it.
 * Judy Feiffer, inspired by her tales about her childhood, contacts editor Robert Loomis Ambiguity here. On first reading I thought "her" referred to Feiffer.
 * Clarified.


 * What are you looking at me for. Can you double-check that a question mark is not supposed to be here?
 * Done so, and no there's no question mark in the source. However, I found that the original doesn't have a break in between the sentences, so I removed it.  What do you think about putting it in a blockquote?
 * Npw that iot is one one line, that would probably look better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to tell Elam that you don't sketch with a brush.
 * Ha ha. Doncha love those mixed metaphors? ;)


 * How about a reference at the end of the last paragraph?
 * Done.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the valuable feedback as always, and for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have not spent time verifying the content of this article, but I believe the prose is well-written and trust its accuracy based on the author's additional work. I would support the promotion of this article assuming concerns by all other reviewers are addressed. Christine, thank you for contributing great work to Wikipedia! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AB! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this edit and forgot to mention this one request after reviewing the article. Thanks, Quadell, for actually articulating something that came and left my mind! (The joys of being a distracted Wikipedian...) -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks by Quadell:
 * 4a and b: Quotations are correct
 * 4c and d: The opinion of the reviewer is well summarized without plagiarism.
 * 7a, c, and e: Quotations are correct
 * 7b and d: The insight of the reviewer is correctly stated and reworded without plagiarism.
 * 8: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
 * 12: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
 * 15: Fact is in source.
 * 26: The source is very will summarized. Well cited, no problems.
 * 34: Quote is correct.

All in all, the sourcing is excellent, as I've come to expect from the nominator. – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Quadell

 * All images are used appropriately and have correct descriptions and sourcing.
 * The article sourcing is excellent, as detailed above in the spotchecks.
 * The second sentence in the lede, beginning "The 2002 spoken word album...", feels out of place. In my opinion, it would fit better in the middle of the second paragraph or at the end of the third.
 * I see you sourced only direct quotes in the lede, which is a good decision. It seems to me, though, that "calamitous events" should be a direct quote with a source in the "plot summary" section, and should have neither the quotation marks nor the source in the lede.
 * It seems you felt the phrase was enough of an opinion to still require a direct quote and source in the lede. That's an editorial decision that, while different than the one I would have made, is valid. No objections. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The lede adequately summarizes all parts of the article, without giving undue weight to any section. Well done.
 * In the "background" section, the second paragraph uses the "as ___ stated," structure 3 times in 3 sentences (and uses "stated" again later in the paragraph). The prose would flow better with more diverse phrasing.
 * Mom & Me & Mom should be linked its first time it is referred to in the body of the article.
 * All the above addressed; thanks for the kind words.


 * The "plot summary" section should not assume knowledge of her previous autobiographies to be understandable. It mentions "to resume her nightclub act", but the reader doesn't know what kind of act until it is later implied that she was a singer. It also states that Guy's "neck is broken again", without mention of a previous break.
 * You're right, of course. Fixed the first by changing and adding content: "...to resume her singing and performing career, which she had given up before leaving for Africa several years earlier."  I fixed the second by removing the reference to Guy's broken neck and by adding the note explaining when his first accident occurred.


 * There are a few opportunities for rewording in the "plot summary section". For one, consider rewording: "She realizes, after seeing Della Reese perform, that she lacks the desire, commitment, and talent be a singer, so she returns to her writing career, but this time in Los Angeles instead of in New York City like earlier in her life." It's missing a "to" before "be a singer", but more importantly, it feels disorganized. This might be a better way of putting it: "She realizes, after seeing Della Reese perform, that she lacks the desire, commitment, and talent to be a singer. She instead returns to her writing career, but this time in Los Angeles instead of in New York City as she had earlier in her life." (A different rewording may work even better.)
 * I like your version fine, so I've used it.


 * Another place: "She witnesses the 1965 Watts Riots, even though it could mean getting arrested, which to her disappointment, does not occur." Try instead "She witnesses the 1965 Watts Riots, knowing that doing so could lead to her arrest, and she is genuinely disappointed that it does not." (Or some other rewording.)
 * Ditto. ;)


 * The sentence beginning "At one point, Angelou's lover..." feels like a series of phrases joined by commas. It should be reworded and perhaps broken up.
 * Done both. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This is only a suggestion and is not required for my support, but... I notice that paragraphs 2 and 3 of the "style and genre" section share much prose with articles about her other autobiographies. To some degree this is unavoidable, but it seems to me that there may be material at Maya Angelou which can be used instead to add variety to these articles. I think it is worth considering, though not strictly necessary. (I do not have enough knowledge of Angelou's style to suggest specific changes.)
 * I've thought about this feedback, and have come to the conclusion that I respectfully disagree with it. I understand what's behind it--that these sections need to be more different from each other.  There are three paragraphs in the above-mention section in the main bio article that aren't here.  The reason it's not here is that it discusses the style and genre in all her autobiographies.  I think the the content in this article relates more specifically to this book, which is why it's here and why the other content isn't.  The other problem is that while Angelou's autobiographies have had much more discussion and study than her poetry (I know that because these days, I'm working on her poetry articles), there hasn't been a lot compared to other important American authors.  There are literally no sources specifically discussing the genre and style of this particular book, so I've had to generalize.  Is my explanation satisfactory?  I appreciate the question, because it's made me think about it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect that. Thanks for the consideration. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "critical reception" section is particularly strong and remarkably even-handed.

I look forward to supporting when all issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, all issues addressed, I can't find anything that is not fully FA-worthy in the article. – Quadell (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - The article is well structured and set out, it has a clean and coherent feel to it. It is well written and engaging, too. References are good. There are a couple of points which I would have raised but have been done so by other editors, so I feel happy to support this nomination with the assurance that the above points are amended. —  AARON  &bull; TALK   17:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem with this FAC, any reason why it's being held up for so long? Please let me know, so I can address any issues. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Dr. Blofeld
I'll review this tomorrow, perhaps my review might make a difference to it passing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  17:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Some inconsistencies in date formatting in sourcing. Mostly digits but ref 38 has a 25. January. Strange to have a dot but I'd generally rather digits are put in writing e.g 12 August 2013 rather than 2013-08-12. Looks more professional to me. Can you ensure they're all consistent one way or the other? Given that you've already given some dates of publications as April 2002 i think it makes sense that you convert the digits to written dates too..
 * This is more of a problem with the templates, and with the fact that the sources' publication dates are month and date rather than my practice of using the 0000-00-00 format. I think that's an editor preference that unfortunately doesn't make it consistent in this case.  I'm willing to put up with it, but for you, Doc, I will make the formatting change.  But only because I love ya, dude. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * She had become recognized and highly respected as a spokesperson for Blacks and women. She was, as scholar Joanne Braxton has stated, "without a doubt, ... America's most visible black woman autobiographer".[3] She had also be -repetition of she, change one or two to Angelou.
 * "The title of Song was based upon the same poem, by African American poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar, she based her first autobiography on. "" Repetition of based, I'd reword it as "The title of Song was based upon the same poem, by African American poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar, the basis of her first autobiography."


 * Background


 * Not sure why (She did not celebrate her birthday, April 4, for many years because it was also the anniversary of King's death, choosing instead to send his widow Coretta Scott King flowers.[12]) is in brackets in a separate sentence. Either put it as a note at the bottom of the article or keep it as a sentence without brackets.


 * Style


 * Delink Robert Loomis at the bottom of section (already linked).
 * All the above addressed, thanks.
 * Reception


 * "Amy Strong of The Library Journal, perhaps because Angelou's life during the time the book took place was full of more personal loss than conflict and struggle, considered Song less profound and intense than the previous books in Angelou's series." Seems a little OR, especially as it's unsourced.
 * But it's not unsourced. Ref 42 supports both the first and second statements in the 3rd paragraph.  Personally, I think that citing both statements is WP:OVERCITE, but I can do it you want.

Thanks, I appreciate the helpful feedback, as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support You're most welcome. Hope to see this pass very soon.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.