Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mom & Me & Mom/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 Ian Rose 14:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC) [//en.wikipedia.org/?diff=605901582].

Mom & Me & Mom

 * Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Maya Angelou's final (or more likely, most recent) autobiography, which she published at the age of 85. It's a little on the short side for an FA, but still eligible, and I believe, comprehensive enough. It's my personal goal to bring all of Angelou's major works, where possible, to FA-status. Thanks for the consideration, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2014 (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, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * Why do you suggest the cover is non-free rather than PD-text/PD-ineligible? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry Nikki, but I have no idea what you're talking about. (Images are not my strong suit here.)  I dealt with the cover image the same as I always have.  Please tell me what you want me to do.  Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nikki. This is apparently simple enough to be PD-text. Compare File:Theory of Literature cover.jpg and File:The Pleasure of the Text cover.jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, I love how you always learn stuff here. This was the first time I had to deal with this, so thanks for bringing it to my attention. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment Unless I've missed it, there's no mention of who published the book? It seems to be the same with Song Flung... and other Angelou biographies.—indopug (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Combination of me not understanding how to use the infobox template and depreciated parameters; not only did I fix it on this article, I went back and made the correction on her other autobiographies. I probably should make sure they're correct at Angelou's other books, too.  Will do so, but later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Support nomination: The prose and presentation is very fine, and the article is rich in comprehensiveness. I don't yet see an issue that should prevent it from achieving WP:Featured article status. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Shoebox2

Tentative support. Characteristically well-written, beautifully formatted and thorough. For the most part a wonderful and eminently readable job of demonstrating enthusiasm and affection for the subject without tipping over into bias. I do have a few minor concerns prior to confirming:
 * "They briefly visited their mother in St. Louis, but at the age of eight, Angelou was raped, the rapist was killed; she felt so guilty, she chose to stop talking to everyone but Bailey." --This key moment in the synopsis feels vague and rambly. In particular, I'm not sure what the first clause has to do with the rest of the sentence, and "the rapist was killed" could stand a bit of elaboration (a revenge killing? By whom?)
 * Yah, that sentence could be better. I revised it by correcting the grammar error, expanding it, and separating it into two sentences: "They briefly visited their mother in St. Louis, but at the age of eight, Angelou was raped, and in retaliation, the rapist was killed by members of her family.  She felt so guilty for his death, she chose to stop talking to everyone but Bailey for several years."


 * "Baxter's reaction was to run a bath; as Angelou said, "In our family, for some unknown reason, we consider it an honor to run a bath, to put in bubbles and good scents for another person" --This is a lovely little anecdote, but maybe a bit too much specific detail in a synopsis?
 * I dunno, I think it demonstrates an important aspect of Baxter, of her relationship with her daughter, and the dynamics of their family.
 * It does; it's just that it represents a rather abrupt switch from a comparatively broad overview of a relationship to a small intimate moment within it. However, on reread I can see better what you're trying to do, and have no problem letting it go. Shoebox 2   talk  23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "There is a heart-breaking scene between Angelou and her brother" --"Heart-breaking", though probably true, is much too emotive for encyclopedic comfort. How about "difficult"?
 * Okay.


 * "Angelou's editor Robert Loomis was able to dare her into writing Caged Bird by challenging her to write an autobiography that could be considered "high art"," --"Dare her into writing" feels a bit overly informal, if not actually weasel-y. Suggest replacing with "convince her to write".
 * Done, but you should know that this is the exact wording in many other Angelou articles, including I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. ;)
 * Since you're being so kind as to humour me here, I shall magnanimously let it go in those other instances. ;) Shoebox 2  talk  23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Style and genre" --This may just be my unfamiliarity with the standard format for articles on individual volumes of a book series, but there appears to be much more of a general overview of Angelou's work in this section than is needed to place this one volume into context. In particular, the paragraph outlining her writing process, in great detail, doesn't seem to have anything to do with this particular book at all?
 * Again, this parallels most of the other Angelou articles about her previous six autobiographies, all of which are FAs. I'm just sayin'! ;) Seriously, other lit articles do talk about an author's writing process.  It can be argued that the paragraph about Angelou's writing regime doesn't fit in this article because no sources specifically state that she used it for this book, but I think that it's an appropriate assumption that if she used it for all her other books, she used it for this one.  I also think it's appropriate to assume that the style and genre discussion can be applied to this book as well.
 * Six... Right, so you're the Angelou-autobiography-article expert and I'm more than willing to defer the point on that basis. :) Also, you make good sense. I was thinking in terms of unnecessary repetition for a reader working their way through all the articles in the series; but it's equally reasonable to consider the reader looking for information on just the one. Shoebox 2   talk  23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That was a decision that was made pretty early in the development of the articles, something that other editors suggested that I do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure: they are written by a single author, they are chronological, and they contain elements of character, technique, and theme." --Given that the following paragraph specifically covers the debate over whether her books can strictly be considered autobiographies, perhaps this opening reference should be something like "Angelou's prose works (or "Angelou's memoirs") conform to the standard autobiographical structure"? Also "elements of character, technique and theme" feels extremely vague (couldn't this be said of most books?)
 * There are specific differences between a memoir and an autobiography, so I hesitate following your suggestion. Also, Angelou wrote essays as well, so I resist calling her autobiographies "prose works", too.  The list of reasons why these books should be characterized as autobiographies are elements of the genre, so that's why it's included.  IOW, I disagree with you that they're too vague.
 * Ah, I see now where I misread that last bit as vague, I think. It's not entirely clear that these are "elements of character, technique and theme" specific to autobiographies... at least, it wasn't clear to me. I leave it to you to decide whether that means anyone else would stumble over it, but would just suggest you consider adding "...common to the form" or similar on the end there. Shoebox 2   talk  23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "in the British publication The Independent", "the London publication The Observer" --Not sure why "publication" is used here in place of the more informative "newspaper"? (And both are British--ie. national--papers, by the way.) Similarly, "British Broadcasting Corporation" can I think be safely abbreviated to the much more standard "BBC".
 * I think I was trying to vary the prose a bit, but I'm good with changing it as per your request. I actually agree with you about the BBC, but other reviewers told me to expand it in parallel articles, so that's why it was done here.

Shoebox 2  talk  03:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate the fair hearing under the aforementioned expert circs. :) Am happy to now offer firm Support. One further question--such an obvious one I'm sure you've already considered it, which is why I'm not making it a further condition of support--but am still curious as to why the article doesn't include a picture of Angelou's mother? Shoebox 2   talk  23:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There isn't a picture of Baxter because there isn't a free one available.  But I agree that if it were available, it'd be a nice addition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Support nomination
 * I read through it and I think it's great. My only question is whether you considered turning the Maya Angelou autobiographies into a Featured Topic. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, that's the next destination after (or rather, if) this passes to FA. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Review by Quadell
I'd previously reviewed several other articles on Angelou's works, and this one is similarly complete, well-written, balanced, and organized. I made a few minor changes; feel free to revert any if you disagree. I have some suggestions and nitpicks below.

Lead:
 * Verb agreement in a few spots: "and fills in", "transitions from resentment and distrust"
 * Fixed.
 * I think I had read "transition" as a verb, but you'd meant it as a noun, so I made a minor reword to clarify. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "discuss her life through the autobiography" sounds odd to me. I think "through autobiography" (or "through an autobiography") would work better.
 * Removed "the".


 * I would swap the order of the final two sentences in the lead, so that it doesn't sound like there are photos throughout the audiobook.
 * Duh, got it.

Background:
 * It isn't totally clear what interim is meant in the first paragraph. I would recommend removing "In the interim", though it might also work to replace it with a different prepositional phrase.
 * Okay, I replaced the phrase with: "In the time period between the publication of her sixth and seventh autobiographies..."
 * Ah, that interim. It's clear now. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the third paragraph, Sturges is quoted, but the text doesn't say who is speaking. In my opinion, it would be better as "For the first time, Angelou focuses on her relationship with her mother in this book, and fills in what reviewer Fiona Sturges calls 'possibly the final blanks in Angelou's eventful life'."
 * Went with your suggestion.


 * I'm confused by the meaning of the colon in the first sentence of the 4th paragraph. Does the prologue explain why she wrote the book and also how she became Maya Angelou? Or does it explain that she wrote the book in order to show how she became Maya Angelou?
 * Related to this, I can't imagine Maya Angelou not being Black and female, so it seems odd to say she became Maya Angelou despite being these things. Would it get the point across better to say "how she became, despite being poor, Black, and female, a renowned poet"?
 * I used her wording, but she's allowed to be poetic, while I'm not. ;) Looking at that sentence again, I can see that it's clumsy; of course, she would "begin the book with a prologue". So I changed it: "Angelou explains in the book's prologue why she wrote the book, which was to explain how she became, despite being born poor, Black, and female, a renowned author and poet."


 * In my opinion, it would be better to make the part after the semicolon into a complete sentence, as in: "the first 13 chapters are grouped into the first section"...
 * Did this: "The book is divided into two sections: the first 13 chapters are grouped into the first section, called "Mom & Me", and the remaining chapters make up the second section, called "Me & Mom"."

Plot summary:
 * I can't tell if Vivian Baxter was adopted by a German family, or if Baxter's unnamed Irish mother was.
 * Baxter's mother was, but I took the easy route and simply removed the offending phrase, since it's not all that important, anyway.
 * That makes sense. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Verb agreement: "The stories Angelou relates"
 * Got it.


 * Consider "The stories Angelou relate include how Baxter supported her as an independent single mother, saving her life after a jealous ex-boyfriend beat her, and Baxter's initial resistance and then acceptance of her first marriage to Greek sailor Tosh Angelos". In a list, it's best if all three items are of the same grammatical structure. Here we have "how Baxter supported" (clause), "saving her life" (gerund), and "resistance" (noun). How about this? "Angelou relates several stories of Baxter, including her support of Angelou as an independent single mother, her life-saving intervention after a jealous ex-boyfriend beat Angelou, and her initial resistance and then acceptance of Angelou's first marriage to Greek sailor Tosh Angelos." (There are other ways to structure the sentence, of course, and anything is fine so long as the three items agree.)
 * Went with your suggestion.

(to be continued...) – Quadell (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you back at FAC, Quadell -- if you were planning to undertake a source review for formatting/reliability as part of your commentary, that'd be very welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do that, yes. – Quadell (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Although I believe I read the "Style and genre" and "Critical reception" sections just as critically as I did the previous sections, I could find little to nitpick. I made a few minor changes, but found no problems worth mentioning here.

Images:
 * I find no issues.

References:
 * The References and Works cited are consistently formatted, and I could find no problems with date formats, punctuation, or dashes. The links all work, and ISBNs are all correct. All of the sources are fully reliable and of a high quality. Searching on my own, I found a few lower-quality "puff" reviews that I think were appropriately omitted, but no major sources that should have been included.
 * However, Gilespie et al.'s Celebration is fully listed in both the Works cited section and in reference 5, and should probably only have a short listing in ref 5 as it does in ref 24.
 * Done; I also added "et al" to ref 24.


 * I also wonder if Braxton's collection shouldn't be listed in "Works cited", with a shortened version in the references, though I admit I'm not sure the best way to do that with separate authors in the same collection.
 * My rule of thumb, and how I've seen it in journals, is to list a source in a "Works cited" section only if it's cited more than once. When you cite something once, even if it's from an article in a journal or collection you've already used, it's standard to cite the article separately.  The source is the article, not the collection.
 * Okay, you didn't cite the same section more than once, so that makes sense. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Other thoughts:
 * Are there any statistics available for how well the book sold? Amazon refers to it as a New York Times bestseller, which seems notable.
 * I had looked for this before, and didn't find anything reliable that gives these statistics. I just did a cursory look again, and came up with the same result.  Yes, Amazon calls the book a bestseller, and so does its publisher, Random House.  I didn't include either because they're not reliable.  I could use The NYT's bestseller list, which states that it was 8th the week it came out, if you like.
 * If it's important for the completeness of an article on a book, then you should include it. I'm not sure what's standard in book FAs, so I'm sure your judgment will be better than mine. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to your responses. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the review as always. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, all issues are addressed, and all criteria fulfilled. I'm glad to support. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again; I added the content about the bestseller stats as requested above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.