Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Autobiography of Malcolm X/archive4


 * 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 05:54, 27 May 2011.

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

 * Nominator(s): — GabeMc, Malik Shabazz, Protonk (talk)

We are nominating The Autobiography of Malcolm X for featured article because after it's GAN, Peer Reviews, and three FACs we believe the article to be FA worthy. — GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this at its last FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Images have been previously checked and okayed, no changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Further reading should be a different section from references. "References" list all the references about the info in the article. "Further reading" provides links or any other books that the reader can go and get their hands on, which are not cited in the article. Sp33dyphil  Ready • to • Rumble  11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources: Not a problem, checked out well last two FACs, no material changes now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment from a co-nom: We had a lot of questions in the last two FACs about the tone of the construction section as well as its presentation of Haley. I don't want to say those questions were prima facia unworkable but I got the feeling that many of them would have been resolved had those editors sat down the the secondary sources.  Perhaps this is our fault for not being as clear as possible, but the questions about Haley's unorthodox role as a "ghostwriter/co-author" were central to late scholarship of the Autobiography.  As such it is hard to take seriously a complaint that the word "unique" is somehow unecyclopedic or inaccurate.  Multiple sources lavished time on the nature and implications of Haley and Malcolm's collaboration and the article would suffer were we to impose unnecessary stricture on the text because some editors are incredulous that the sources say what they do.  Many of the volumes cited are available on google books and I am happy to recover and scan copies of those which are not for interested reviewers. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Support, with comments. Thanks, Apterygial  talk 12:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised there isn't more detail on the origins of the Autobiography. What prompted Haley to approach Malcolm X with the idea (if indeed it was his) after he'd written about Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam in the past, and was it clear what Malcolm X was expecting? More explanation on this could perhaps set up better the dynamic between the two during the writing process itself.
 * I'll talk about this more, but it is far from clear what the relationship between the two men was like before they started the autobiography. Even though Haley wrote about NOI and Malcolm previously, Malcolm treated him with a great deal of suspicion.  There is some really sketchy speculation that Malcolm was worried about Haley fictionalizing things (as he did to some extend in the autobiography and to a great extent in Roots) but only one source mentions this concern and only very briefly--brief enough that I get the feeling the source is imputing their knowledge of Roots into the relationship between malcolm and haley. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some detail about the impetus of the Autobiography. — GabeMc (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice "Though Haley is nominally a ghostwriter" was changed to "Though Haley is technically a ghostwriter". I believe this was a change in response to Jakob's comments at the last FAC, but to me this is more confusing; "technically" suggests the opposite to "nominally", in that it says that Haley's role was definitely (in a technical sense) that of a ghostwriter, which is contradicted by the scholars you then cite. What was wrong with "nominally" that "technically" fixed? Was Haley originally credited as the ghostwriter (which would suggest "nominally" as the best word, although perhaps "ostensibly" would work better)? This might appear a minor point, but it introduces to the reader of the article Haley's role in the work, and it's critical for understanding the rest of the article that it is clear.
 * I think nominally is fine but ostensible may be better. Technically is the wrong word. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it to ostensibly. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Marable argues that a critical analysis of the Autobiography, or the full relationship between Malcolm X and Haley, do not support this view". Does, surely (I mention it here, instead of changing it directly, because it could be an AmEng thing. Perhaps Dank can offer guidance).
 * Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are the in-quote clarifications in Stone's quote in Narrative presentation really necessary? Can't the article's reader understand without these clarifications that the writer is Haley and the subject Malcolm X (presumably Stone didn't have this problem when he wrote the source or he would have changed it himself).
 * I added the in-quote clarifications there because Jacob.schoolbach suggested it was confusing as it was. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". Haley's "pocketing" of Malcolm X's discarded notes for sub rosa integration of his "subconscious reflections" into the workable narrative is an example of..." A little repetitive. Perhaps "Haley would secretly "pocket these sketchy notes" and reassemble them in an attempt to integrate Malcolm X's "subconscious reflections" into the "workable narrative". This is an example of..."
 * Good suggestion, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "In April 2010, the New York Post reported that the missing chapters would be published with a foreword by Malcolm X's daughter Ilyasah Shabazz." While I'm confident you will, make sure the article is updated when this is released (and probably the Missing chapters section expanded as well).
 * Agreed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Support Interesting and well-written article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is all of that "Further reading" necessary? It seems to be more of a list of books about Malcolm X, rather than further reading about *this* book about Malcolm X-- in other words, why are those here, instead of cited in the article about the man? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.