Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

 * Nominator(s): Figureskatingfan 
 * previous FAC (20:53, 11 July 2008)

I am nominating this article because it fulfills all the criteria for becoming a featured article. The 40th anniversary of the book's publication is this year, and it would be a great way for the Wikipedia community to honor Maya Angelou, the author of the book. This is also the first step in the establishment of a Maya Angelou featured topic. The team of editors (myself, Scartol, and Awadewit have worked really hard in getting this article ready for FAC. Moni3 has also given it a solid review.  The article has come a long way since its last FAC.  I also believe that this article has the potential to be a valuable resource for students and readers of Angelou's works.  The sources used are excellent.  It is truly an example of one of Wikipedia's best articles. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Re: "Although poet Hilton Als considers Caged Bird an important contribution to the increase of black feminist writings in the 1970s...". I've searched multiple references to Hilton Als and he is described as a journalist, an essayist, a writer and a critic, but I found no references that refer to him as a poet. Elsewhere, this article describes him as an "author" and a "writer". Is it correct to call him a poet, too? Also, Hilton Als is red-linked in the article, which is OK considering he's likely to be notable enough for a future article, but his name is used in the article twice before the red-link. The first usage should be the designated red-link. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I red-linked the first mention of Als, where he's called a "writer". Then I changed all other mentions to him to "Als".  The instance you mention was actually the last time he's named in the article, which is now fixed.  Thanks for the catch. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support (Note: I reviewed this article, copyedited it, and gave general advice on the FAC process to .) This article is based on a solid foundation of research, which covers both the academic material on Caged Bird (of which there is less than one might expect) and some of the popular media coverage. From these materials, Figureskatingfan has constructed a comprehensive article that covers the composition, publication, and reception of the text as well as its themes and styles. Caged Bird is a difficult text to explain, as it is both autobiography and fiction, but I believe that this article clearly articulates the plot and its meanings to a reader who hasn't read the book (as I have not - gasp!). It is also well-illustrated and all of its images meet the requirements of our image policies. Awadewit (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (I noticed NPR and IMBD, but there might be others)
 * Done, and thank you. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.


 * Support. I reviewed it, my comments are on the talk page. Well done. I think Wikipedia is ready to initiate another novel into its very small FA novel ranks. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I was involved in the middle stages of this article's development, and I've been consistently impressed with Figureskatingfan's dedication to it. This article has benefited greatly from her tireless devotion and attention, and I'm very happy to see the quality research and prose style that has resulted. Scartol  •  Tok  15:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with comments. This is a great read, thank you. Will you be working on her other autobiographies? I note that not all of them even have articles.
 * You're welcome, very glad to oblige. The answer to your question is, yes.  My long-term WP goal is to not only create articles on all of Dr. Angelou's autobiographies, as I have already done with Gather Together in My Name, but to eventually create a MA-featured topic.  Of course, that means that I have to read them.  Then we can use the information in those books to improve her bio page, which is currently in GAC.  (Not my idea;it was nominated by another editor.  I understand it's kinda dumb to have two noms going at the same time.)  I ordered MA's third autobiography, Singin' and Dancin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas, and it arrived just this week!  But it's, like I said, a long-term project, especially since it seems I'm the only one on the project willing to take it on.  Not that I mind; it'll be fun! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're crazy to take on a FT with so many books to read. I would never do something so crazy. Scartol  •  Tok  04:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, now you're just bragging! And in French, no less! ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Critics have often judged Angelou's subsequent autobiographies "in light of the first", with Caged Bird receiving the highest praise." Please revise to eliminate the "with" connector and noun +ing construction. I played with a bit but couldn't settle on anything.
 * Changed to: "...and Caged Bird generally receives the highest praise." Scartol  •  Tok  22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed a couple instances of "in order to" to "to" except where clarity might suffer. This is subjective so feel free to revert me.
 * I hate to say it, but I've been spoiled by those navigation boxes people place at the footer of some articles. Here's why: When I was done reading, I immediately wanted to find a list of her other autobiographies. There is no direct access to that list (that I saw) from this article. I had to click to her article, then click another link to get to Works of Maya Angelou. Can you add the latter to a See also heading? Or better yet, see the type of collapsible box at the bottom of Crime and Punishment.
 * I'll be happy to make one of these. Gimme a day or two. Scartol  •  Tok  22:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I lied. It's been created and added. (I made it auto-collapse so as to be less obtrusive.) Scartol  •  Tok  22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks really nice, thanks! -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And, look, someone has created a stub! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've got two stubs now. Behold the mighty power of template creation! Scartol  •  Tok  16:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Technical review
 * Dabs and external links are up to speed using the checker tools.
 * Ref formatting
 * There are instances of book refs which have multiple pages, which should be formatted as "pp." not p.
 * Fixed, I'm pretty sure. This could use an extra set of eyes to make sure.
 * I'm pretty sure you got it.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The following refs are duplicated, and appear in the ref section as such, use a ref name instead.
 * Smith, p. 54
 * Moore, p. 56
 * Done and done. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

-- ₮ RU  C Ө   02:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ...is up to speed as well.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "but the book is best characterized as an autobiography," I was a bit surprised to see this wording ("best characterized") in the lead; if the critical consensus is that it's an autobiography, I think it might be best to use a more specific wording ("prevailing critical view" or the like). The phrase also prompted me to look for a discussion on the autobiography v. autobiographical fiction debate in the Style and genre section, and an argument as to why the former was "best", but I didn't see one clearly laid out.
 * Okay, I changed the wording to satisfy your first request, but I'm not sure I agree with your second one. The second paragraph in the "Style" section does, I believe, adequately explain why Caged Bird is an autobiography, and why there's a controversy about it.  It uses fiction-like elements, not just from novels, but from slave narratives.  It also has a unique voice different than most autobiographies.  This is stated in the text. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I got a different impression when reading that paragraph. The paragraph seemed mainly to concentrate on why scholars might classify it as autobiographical fiction—that while it features the first-person narrative voice, it also contains elements of fiction, two distinct voices, and the first-person singular representing the first-person plural. I don't see a summary of any scholarly arguments that counter these views. After reading the paragraph, and indeed the entire section, I find myself asking why Caged is an autobiography and not autobiographical fiction. The section seems to state that it's an autobiography as fact without really delving into the arguments of critics who believe this (for example, the second sentence: "Although Caged Bird is an autobiography, critic Mary Jane..."); what do they have to say about the points made by those on the other side of this debate? Note that I have no opinion as to the merits of either side's argument, and I trust your editorial judgment when you say that it is an autobiography; however, as a layman on this subject, I was hoping to see some more words devoted to explaining the debate and why it's an autobiography, rather than just giving "it is an autobiography" as fact and leaving it there. Budding Journalist 06:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point, so I pulled out my Lupton and used it to clarify the classification, and to summarize her arguments for Caged Bird being an autobiography. I also used Dr. Angelou's own words, in the Tate interview, that classify it that way.  I figure if that's the way the author classifies it, that's the way it should be classified.  I hope that's satisfactory.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is clearer now in the article. Budding Journalist


 * "Angelou reports that maintaining this distinction is "damned difficult", but "very necessary"." I don't think she is referring to the two voices in the book here. In the interview where this is taken from, she seems to be referring to the act of distancing herself from the Maya character. Budding Journalist 15:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your distinction. The difficulty here is that Dr. Angelou's being somewhat dissociative in her writing.  She's both the Maya character and the adult who's writing about her.  In order to utilize the adult writer voice, she must distance herself, the writer, from the child.  So I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do, or how to fulfill your concern.  Unfortunately, no one's really written anything about the connection between the dissociative nature of this book and how many rape victims dissociate to cope with their trauma.  That makes it really hard to describe in this article.  There were times when other editors asked, "Now who are we talking about here"? and we worked at making it as clear as we could.  There needed to be a distinction between the Maya character and the writer, and it was damned difficult.  The popular media has a great deal of trouble with it.  As someone in the mental health field, though, I find this whole thing very interesting.  BJ, if you want to take a crack at better describing it, have a try. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have hedged a bit more in my original comment—I meant that I'm not entirely sure that her response in the interview ("It's damned difficult for me to preserve this distancing. But it's very necessary.") was about the struggle to draw a distinction between the two voices in the novel (as suggested by what's in the article...maybe I'm reading this wrong), but rather maintaining a personal distance from the Maya character ("Whenever I speak about the books, I always think in terms of the Maya character. When I wrote the teleplay of [Caged], I would refer to the Maya character so as not to mean me."). But perhaps I'm wrong. Budding Journalist 06:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a matter of interpretation. The use of the two voices causes a personal distance, which enables her to write about what's happened.  To compromise, I added the phrase, "... in order to distance herself from the story" to the end of the sentence in question.  Let me know what you think. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See if my edit makes sense. Budding Journalist 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better, thanks. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: Dude, I just reviewed Maya Angelou for GAC (currently on hold), and that got me wondering how this article was doing, since Scartol asked me a while ago if I could re-review it, and I never got around to it because I'm a dweeb with no free time and a goldfish's capacity for memories, and dude! How things have changed since this first showed up at FAC a year ago!  Fascinating read, very well done, guys.  In particular I like the ref-links to individual pages at Google Books -- great idea, I can't believe I hadn't thought of it before.  Overall excellent article, and I hope Angelou's article follows suit in time... once my concerns have been addressed, that is. ;) María ( habla  con migo ) 20:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "In particular I like the ref-links to individual pages at Google Books" Indeed! Quite helpful, and hopefully the start of a trend. Budding Journalist 04:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't take the credit for this one! The problem is, though, I can't remember who taught it to me.  Like Maria, I also have the memory of a goldfish.  I want to say, though, that it was someone who's helped edit Stanford Memorial Church, but I wasn't able to find any evidence of it.  I have to admit, though, that it's a pain to implement.  That might be a really good bot for someone to create. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By this token, I went through the article's references and made sure every page reference that could be linked is. Yes, it was a pain. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Support I made a couple very tiny tweaks. One remaining sentence could use a fix for redundancy ("The public library is a refuge...and it becomes a "quiet refuge" from the chaos of her life."). Altogether this is very well done. Extra bonus points for choosing a topic so wildly disparate from your first FA :) Maralia (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by deleting the last phrase of that sentence: "The public library is a "quiet refuge" to which Maya retreats when she experiences crisis". And thanks.  The above mentioned "MemChu" article will probably be my next FA, and that's pretty different from this one and my first, The Wiggles.  And my one and only FL, List of people with hepatitis C. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.