Talk:All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes/Archives/2014/June

To do

First off, well done! What a great expansion! A couple suggestions before next step (peer review? GA nomination?):

Thanks, AB! I usually like to let an article sit for at least a couple of weeks after expanding/writing it. The next step is DYK; it's been nominated, but hasn't been assigned a date yet. Then GAN is next, I think.

• endashes for page ranges  Done
• "cite book" template for Citations section
• "Harvard citation no brackets" template for references

  I'm not as familiar with these kinds of sourcing methodologies. My method provides the same results when you look at the end result of an article, and for me, it's simpler. But if you want to give me a tutorial on it (or even make the change yourself), I'm open to it.

  • Here is one example, if you are interested in seeing how the template can be used. You'll notice that under the Specific references, a reader can click on an author's last name and it jumps to the appropriate source in the Works Cited section. This is certainly not required, just something I appreciate and thought it might be potentially useful here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• linking in references (news sources, journals, etc.)

  Are you talking about putting double brackets around, for example, The New York Times in ref 66? If so, I've never seen the need for doing it in reference sections. If a reviewer tells me I should, though, I will. And I won't revert the edits of another editor who chooses to do so.

  • No worries. Often sources are linked, though I have also had requests to remove linking for sources, especially for internationally renowned sources like The New York Times. Depends on the reviewers, I suppose. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• other categories?

  Again, I will feign ignorance to mask my laziness. My practice is to allow other editors to take of this for me, since I'm not knowledgeable about cats. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, like this article, has 5 cats and it's a FA. Christine (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

--Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Figureskatingfan, please do not take any of the above as criticism but rather notes/reminders to myself. None of the above is required (as far as I know), but I appreciate that you are open to the suggestions, especially if requested in the review process. I am not sure of any additional categories to add either, though perhaps another read through the article would offer suggestions (I added the Ghana category yesterday). --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Was I being defensive?! ;) I appreciate your feedback, I really do. I think I'm going to wait and see what reviewers tell me about linking within refs (I've never had anyone tell me I should do it, though) and continue to be lazy about cats. If something comes to me re: cats, I'll add them. I kinda lean toward those that say that there's too much categorization in this project, anyway. I'm gonna try out the Harvard citation template; I'm always open to improving the way I do refs and you're right about making the ref section easier for readers. I loved your example! I saw it and went, "Why isn't it an FL!" Then I read the discussion page and FLC are found out why, you poor thing. ;) Christine (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:All God's Children Need Traveling Shoes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: – Quadell ^(talk) 15:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Nominator: User:Figureskatingfan (Christine)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	It's a pleasure to read.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Correctly follows the MoS throughout.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Formatting could be improved, but is up to GA standards.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I am unable to examine the print sources, but statements are backed up by the sources where I can check them. I am confident that the rest is sourced correctly without close paraphrasing, due to the specific attributions, consistent style, and the experience of the nominator.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems found.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fully covers all aspects
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Not a problem.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Uses reliable sources. I searched for criticism that contests the tone of the article, but found nothing.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not a problem.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image sourcing and licensing are all great.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fitting and appropriate, with excellent captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a "Good Article".

Issues and questions

• 1a: I have reworded certain parts of the lede for clarity and flow here. I think these are improvements, but if this causes problems in accuracy or tone, feel free to undo parts and let me know.

  I'm good with your revisions. I welcome copyedits, and especially yours, Q. Christine (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• 1a: At the end of "Background", you state "This was the first time that Black Americans... were able to view Africa in a positive way." Its hard to believe that Black Americans couldn't view Africa positively before the 1950s. I feel this should be rewritten to something less absolute (e.g. "The independence of Ghana and other African states, as well as the emergence of African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah, enabled many Black Americans to view Africa in a positive way more than ever before"). I don't want to go beyond the source though (which I don't have access to), so I don't feel comfortable making this change myself. Also, in that same section, Ghana is not just culturally African; it's African in every sense. It seems to me the "which was culturally African" clause should go.

  Re: the first part of your criticism: I went back to the source and McPherson says that "many Black Americans" felt this way. I understand your concern, so I added the word "many" to my close paraphrase. I tend to go to the other extreme when avoiding plagiarism, so thanks for the catch. You should take that as evidence, however, that close paraphrasing isn't an issue here. Re: the second part: McPherson states that Ghana was "culturally African" as compared to Nigeria, but I wanted to avoid the same comparison here, so I took it out. You're right, of course; it's not clear, so I removed the offensive phrase as you request. Christine (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• 2a: The formatting of references in the "Citations" section should be consistent. Some are written in the "Citations" section as full references (including all publishing details), while others are abbreviated Harvard refs that refer to full references listed in the "Bibliography" section. Consider converting all footnoted citations to Harvard refs, with full citations only in the "Bibliography" section.

  I will have you know that I HATE Harvard style. The only reason I did it here was that my copyeditor suggested it, but I will never do it again. The reason he wanted me to do it was to link the authors with the list in the bibliography. I think that's valid, but instead of using the template, I think a better way is to link them by hand. So I'm going to put the refs back to the old, better style, but it'll probably take awhile to finish. Grr! Christine (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

  Sorry to bring up an unpleasant point. I'm willing to help with this. Just give me a diff showing a ref change, and I'll help put some of the others the same way. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Feedback and suggestions

The following are WP:PR-type feedback and suggestions which are not necessary for the article to attain GA-status. However, they are issues you may want to address in order to make the article the best it can possibly be, or to prepare for a FAC submission if that's your goal.

FAC is always my goal, at least ultimately. I appreciate the feedback. Christine (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• The lede is a good summary of the article. However I don't believe a good lede needs citations, since the same material is cited where it appears in the article itself. You may want to consider removing citations in the lede.

  For the most part, I agree. However, I disagree in regards to when there are direct quotes in the lead. To that end, I removed the citations that weren't direct quotes. Christine (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• There's a very fine line between the "Style" section and the "Critical reception" section. Especially in paragraph 3, but also in the rest of the "Style" section, I feel that much of the critical analysis might fit better in the other section. However I'm not 100% confident of that, since I'm not familiar enough with Angelou criticism. Similarly, the "Critical reception" section makes an admirable attempt at balance, quoting both support and criticism from scholars. But other sections also give analysis from critics and scholars, and it is almost entirely positive (e.g. "Angelou had matured as a writer", "Angelou reports not one person's story, but the collective's", etc.) Again, I don't know if this is a problem or not, since I'm not an expert on Good Articles on literature and I don't have access to the sources. But it's something you may want to examine, to make sure the article is in line with Featured Articles on other works of literature.

  I think I understand. I'm not sure what you want me to do, though. The content in the "Style" section is from Angelou scholars, while the content in "Critical reception" is from reviewers. I suppose that's where I made the distinction. It also parallels other Angelou articles, including I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which is a FA. I suggest that we leave it as is, since you've already graciously passed it to GA, and if/when I take this to FAC, we'll let them tackle the issue. Christine (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the theme of "Motherhood" should be last, since it's introduced with the fact that many critics overlook it. I could be wrong, but it seems like a more natural order to me.

  I respectfully disagree, and not just because I'm a mom myself. ;) I think it belongs first because although many critics overlook it, motherhood as a theme is important throughout all Angelou's autobiographies. The book opens with her son's automobile accident and how she deals with it, and one of the themes throughout it is how she deals with her "empty nest syndrome", with Guy off at college. So I vote to keep the structure as is. Christine (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Due to the nature of writing an article on a contemporary work of literature, this article is very dependent on the analysis of critics. The article is careful to say "According to Lupton" or "As Hagen reports" often, and this is a great way to maintain NPOV in an article on a work with many possible interpretations. But it can seem repetitive. The style of the article might be improved by avoiding "According to X" statements where they are not necessary, i.e. where no analysis from a reliable source could be expected to disagree. In those cases, attribution can be given with only a footnote, and not an in-text attribution. For instance, the article states "Like many of her previous books, Angelou is conflicted about her feelings towards Guy, and is skilled at expressing it in this book.", and credits Lupton in a footnote without using an "According to X" clause, and I think that's appropriate. Here are some other statements where you might consider removing the in-text attribution. (I of course leave that up to your judgment, since you know much more about Angelou criticism than I do.)
  • Also according to Lupton, the alliances and relationships with those she meets in Ghana contribute to her identity and growth. Could this be contested by any notable critic?
  • Hagen also states that the title demonstrates Angelou's love of African-American spirituals and deep sense of religion that appears in all of her works.
  • Hagen also states that this [mature view of racism] is demonstrated in Angelou's treatment of the "genocidal involvement of Africans in slave-trading", something that is often overlooked or misrepresented by other Black writers. Obviously this absolutely requires a footnote, but would it be acceptable to start the sentence at "This is demonstrated"?
  • Lupton also states that like Angelou's previous volumes in her series, the title contributes to its plot and thematic impact.
  • Lupton insists that all of 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.
  • As Lupton states, it [the repeated episode] also creates a strong and emotional link between the two autobiographies.
  • Traveling Shoes is "more tightly controlled" than Angelou's previous books; Lupton states this is due to the dominance of the travel motif.
  • As Lupton states, Angelou's first-hand experience with fascism, as well as the racist sensibilities of the German family she visits, "help shape and broaden her constantly changing vision" regarding racial prejudice. If the direct quote were paraphrased, would it be appropriate to use just a footnote here?

    Thanks for the suggestions regarding the above; I tend to be a little extreme in my attempts to avoid plagiarism. I'm sure there are other instances where I overdo the "as so and so says..." or "according to...", so I'll take another look at the prose in the coming days, or at least before it's submitted to FAC. ;) Christine (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Final comments

I feel that the format of the references can be improved with better standardization, but I can see that you are going to continue to improve this. (The format here is also as good as, or better than, many GAs and some older FAs; it may need improvement before FAC submission, but it's fine for GA standards.) I have given a lot of feedback, and I hope you consider it all, but I'm not 100% sure that any of my suggestions are needed to improve the article. This article is well-written and impeccably sourced, and I'm proud to pass it. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Q. I was a little surprised to see that you had passed it before I made the changes you suggest. I appreciate the assumption of good faith that I'd eventually get to them. Thanks for the assistance, as always. Christine (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Congrats, Christine! (and thanks Quadell for offering a review). --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)