Wikipedia:Peer review/The Autobiography of Malcolm X/archive2

The Autobiography of Malcolm X
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I need the insight of uninvolved editors to further improve the article in preparation for FAC.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, — GabeMc (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments This is an important book that certainly deserves an FA article, but I don't think it's there yet. The comments below are not meant to be exhaustive, but I think I've identified a few structural problems that can be found throughout the article.


 * Section title “Summary of material” should be shortened to “Summary”.
 * Delete first sentence and begin with “The book …” of the book’s title.
 * In the summary I think you should follow the book in calling him Malcolm Little until he changes his name.
 * “which” is used after a comma; otherwise use “that” (as in the first sentence of graf two).
 * The second sentence in that graph should swap with the first, because you’ve already told us it’s more than a simple narrative. In general, write from the general to the specific.
 * It’s a good idea to avoid terms such as “According to ...” Begin the sentence with the speaker and then say what she said, as in, “Robin Kelley, professor of history, American studies, and ethnicity at the University of Southern California, calls the Autobiography a didactic essay…”
 * Also avoid the passive voice.
 * Scholars don’t “affirm” the opinions of other scholars; they “agree”. The entire Arthur Rampersad sentence needs to be reworked; don’t be afraid of breaking long sentences up when to do would make the idea clearer.
 * And use direct verbs. Stone doesn’t “draw a comparison to the Icarus myth”; he “compares it to the Icarus myth.”
 * In the next section, I would change the sentence, “Haley's contribution to the work is unique . . .” to something like “Haley's role in putting the book together is unprecedented in biography …”, that is, if you can find a source that states it as such. I’m sure there must be, because as it is written the diction is awkward and vague.
 * And again, scholars don’t confirm opinions.
 * “Haley exercised discretion” should be the beginning of a new graf.
 * You’ve got some grammar problems in the next section. One that sticks out is the cock-eyed parallel construction in sentence 2: “to his subject, his publisher, to his "editor's agenda", and to himself.” Also some diction problems, such as “neither Haley's nor Malcolm X's voice is as strong as it could be in order to allow readers to insert themselves into the broader socio-psychological narrative.” I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re not there yet. Again, try to simplify and be precise in your diction.
 * Mix up your sentence constructions. It is deadening to read a lot of “X says that Y” sentences over and over. A few “Y, says X” would relieve the monotony. That entire section seems disjointed with no clear theme. Also some of the material in that section would better go into the next section about Haley and Malcolm X’s collaboration.
 * Actually, I think you should throw out about half the critical comments. It appears that you wanted to include every critic that said anything about the book, and reading critical jargon for so long makes for a dull experience, especially since a lot of what they say is repeating what another critic said, such as Haley’s unique role. A reader of the article is going to want to know more about the book than what academics said about it. What about its influence on the public and later political readers? Surely it influenced more people than academics.
 * All the refs need periods, not just some of them.
 * All in all, I enjoyed reading the article and I think you’re on the right track, but I don’t think it’s up to FA standards yet. (It had a tremendous impact on my life when I first read it in 1968 or so, about the same time I read Soul on Ice, but it was several years before I knew about Haley’s role, since I was so young when I read it. Richard Wright’s Black Boy also had a big impact, especially since I read it when I was 10.) Tom Reedy (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and effort Tom Reedy, I am doing my best to incorporate all your suggestions but to be frank, a few went over my head. I am sure you are busy, but if you have the time, the article could use a copy edit from someone with your eye for detail. — GabeMc (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)