Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings/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 not promoted 01:26, 11 March 2008.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings


I'm nominating this article for featured article because although it's only been rated as B so far, I think the editing I've done makes it at least a consideration for FA-status. It's short, but I believe it's a good example of an article about a novel. I would love to see this article reach FA before Maya Angelou's 80th birthday on April 4, and even have it placed on the main page, as a way for the Wikipedia community to honor such a great person. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a decent start, but I think the article needs to be significantly expanded. The major sections (plot summary, literary significance, and criticism) need to be expanded. A "critical reception" (you can merge lit significance into this section) also needs to be created. I recommend you take a look at some other literature FAs for an idea on subject comprehensiveness. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 07:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree completely with Nishkid64's suggestions. This book is one of my favorites and I remember doing a Peer Review for this article a while back.  It has improved from where it was but it's still not comprehensive enough for a Featured Article.  There are statements that are in the lead article that are not mentioned in the body (violation of WP:LEAD), the "Criticism" section is somewhat skimpy, and I would love to see something on the book's narrative style and literary technique; there's a lot to play with here.  I would suggest removing this nomination and trying for Good Article status before setting your sights so high.  Good luck!  María ( habla  con migo ) 13:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - but it's very short. I don't know if it's a famous book, can you enlarge it? MOJSKA   666  (msg) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * An article must be comprehensive to meet FAC criterion #1b. If the article is short, then it fails this part of the criteria. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 17:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is actually not true Nishkid64 - whether an article is short or long is irrelevant when it comes to 1b. If an article is short but addresses all areas of the topic in a comprehensive manner, then it actually meets 1b. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, wrong choice of words. This article is short but does not cover all areas of the topic, so it not comprehensive. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Nishkid64 and Maria. This article is not yet comprehensive; the sections it does include need to be expanded by doing further research and new sections, for example on "writing style" and "genre", need to be added. The article does not yet "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" (criteria 1c). I quickly checked the MLA database and found 56 listings for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings alone (not including all of the work on Angelou more generally that will include information on this book). This article also uses CliffsNotes, which is not a reliable source. Here are a few literature FAs to look at that might provide some guidance: Le Père Goriot, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. I look forward to reading this article again when it has been revised and expanded! Awadewit | talk  14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I also agree with Nishkid. This needs expansion. Wrad (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This article is comprehensive enough.  Wikipedia is not a literary review, and a featured article does not need to be in final form.  It covers all aspects needed for an encyclopedia entry and it is in fine form.  NTK (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a comprehensive summary of information related to the subject, this article is not comprehensive. Wikipedia is not strictly a literary review, but if it is dealing with a literary work, it should cover scholars' literary analysis of it in order to reach FA. It simply isn't comprehensive otherwise. Wrad (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not in "fine form", I'm afraid. The article isn't in terrible shape, true, but to say that it is "comprehensive enough" for Featured Article status when it does not even go into detail about its genre or narrative style is dead wrong.  The information is available, it just needs to be researched and written.  NTK, I strongly suggest that you rethink your ideas about comprehensibility in regards to this article.  María ( habla  con migo ) 00:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've rethought it given these specific deficiencies you point out I withdraw my support. Narrative style and genre are pretty important, and it is rather uneven given that it does include trivia like a Simpsons reference.  I don't think that discussion of scholarly analysis is needed, but more on substance as opposed to mere pop culture references is important. NTK (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think the editors who are remarking on this article can assist you in making the article better. I agree with previous editors who have opposed on the grounds of lack of information about genre and style. The book made a significant impact on later 20th century and African American literature, and so far the article seems well-written. However, in order to do the subject justice, it deserves more information. An exhaustive search on everything related to the book is in order. However, if you enjoy the book, that should be fun. Time consuming, but fun. Good luck with it. --Moni3 (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.