Talk:Stolen Childhood

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

Stolen Childhood → Stolen Childhood: Slave Youth in Nineteenth-Century America – Yes, this is the only article of the same name, "Stolen Childhood". However, the whole title is misleading and ambiguous. Also, there is the Italian film of the same name, but there is not yet an article about it. Perhaps we can use the current title as a redirect to the proposed title. When there will be an article about another topic of the same name, the title will be of the dabpage someday. George Ho (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Some elaboration on why it's misleading? The article is quite straightforwardly about a book, and the title is proper per WP:SUBTITLES. If anything, "Stolen Childhood (book)" makes more sense than using the subtitle. This said, I don't see the point while no other conflicting articles even exist, nevertheless take precedence as the primary topic. czar ♔ 02:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is another book: Stolen Childhood: A Saga of Polish War Children. George Ho (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Which has no English reviews in book review databases and doesn't pass the GNG. Looks like a non-issue. czar ♔ 04:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What about WP:NBOOKS and WP:NTEMP? I found this and that? George Ho (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What about them? Not sure how the Polish book relates to either NBOOKS and NTEMP, and the first link is some guy's blog (not reliable) and the second link is a passing mention, not even written by the BBC author. On the other hand, King's book was reviewed in over a dozen journals. Also this is peripheral to the actual move discussion. czar ♔ 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - highly generic title used by at least 3 major books and 2 films. I just created Stolen Childhood (1994 film), Stolen Childhood (2004 film) is the one mentioned by George above. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The 3rd book by the way would be Stolen Children (1981 book) by John E. Gill who was expert witness in the Oversight hearing on the Missing Children's Assistance Act 1987 "... whose ex-spouses had abducted their children, I was able to gather enough material for the book, Stolen Children." etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

n.b. If there were an article on the 1981 book, the proper disambiguation for each article per NCBOOKS would be Stolen Childhood (King book) and Stolen Children (Gill book). --BDD (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCBOOKS. With only this and Stolen Childhood (film), we're in a WP:TWODABS situation. --BDD (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stolen Childhood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Forbes72 (talk · contribs) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Forbes, thanks for taking the review. If you're comfortable with uploading the review in chunks, I may be able to address your initial concerns before you finish. czar ♔ 03:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose:

• "weak sub-arguments" On the surface, this seems to imply the supporting arguments were weak. Given the context, it looks more like these were tangential claims. Was that what was meant?

Tangential claims? The reviewers felt that her scaffolding arguments were not substantiated. Anyway, I rephrased and removed this part czar ♔ 19:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• "have the opportunities for childhood[6] and in a contradictory fashion, they did not have childhoods." This does not seem like a contradiction to me, it seems like a redundancy.(i.e. they did not have opportunities for their childhood, so they did not have one)

Removed

• "contemporary sense of childhood" This is awkward. Does this mean children's own sense of childhood before they mature? This may imply that they get a sense of childhood after the become adults?

Rephrased—let me know what you think. Common theme in the historiography of childhood is the modern idea of childhood (that children should play and live in their imaginations), and whether it's a social construction and how it developed over history. King contends that slave children were denied childhood by that modern definition.

• "Due to a lack of direct access to the children, the book focuses more on their socialization and stories of survival than their lives" Does this mean the book does not talk about specific children and speaks generally? The sentence seems to imply the book is not talking about "their lives". What is meant here exactly?

Rephrased. Should be clearer now

MOS:

• "Overview" section should be split to separate the mechanics of the book (publication date, length, etc.) from the content of the book (slave children's lives, activities, etc.) Maybe a "Synopsis" section?

Is this necessary, or a suggestion? I prefer it as is. What part of 1b does it not meet?

• Lead should reference the audience and distribution of the book. How many people read this book, and in what context? Based one of the sources, it is a "teaching tool". The lead should mention this.

The doll article had more to do with the author than the book (the book isn't exactly a teaching tool), but ✓ I added another line about the university press to the lede. It should be clear that the book is intended as academic scholarship. None of the reviews say this directly because it's self-evident

• Article is a bit underlinked, consider adding links to subjects mentioned in the article already.

Not a lot to link since this area is relatively underrepresented in the encyclopedia, but ✓ done

• This also includes incoming links.(i.e. it is an "orphaned article")

✓ It was only listed as orphaned during the review

• A "see also" section is recommended.

I personally don't feel this is necessary

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations:

• The amount and location of the links is causing some clutter. Try and move links to the ends of clauses, and remember that references are mainly for statements likely to be challenged.

That link refers to cluttered wikitext. I don't believe there is a guideline against the type of thorough linking used in the article, though I will remove consecutive citations when I edit it next, if it'll help. czar ♔ 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done

• The citations are of good quality.
• The citations are mostly behind a paywall; are there free versions available at least in part? Not required, but helpful.

I'll add notices for the paywall, though JSTOR allows free access to its articles with an account. czar ♔ 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC) ✓ Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• This article needs some filling out of the details. Listing the title of the chapters of the book is recommended.

What details need filling out? The topics covered in the book are already summarized, so a chapter listing would be superfluous

• How many pages in the book?

Looks like you added this to the infobox

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

• Addresses both positive and negative aspects of the book's reception. Good.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Nope.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Image is missing a fair-use rationale.

The image has always had a non-free use rationale—it uses the template czar ♔ 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• Article could use another image. Maybe a picture of the author, or one relevant to the topic?

I don't think this is necessary, but I will look into it czar ♔ 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is well cited, presents some useful information, but generally falls short of the comprehensiveness required for a good article. There are small issues with the clarity and organization of the prose, but the larges issue is holistic coverage of the book's content. Try to expand the chapters of the book, fill out what research was done/referenced. Splitting into a synopsis section is highly recommended. The citations that it has so far are a good step. Building out information from these will go a long way toward improving the article. Forbes72 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your concerns are surmountable and I'll address them over the weekend after the holiday. czar ♔ 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. I also do not know what holistic coverage you want added to make it more "comprehensive", or how that relates to 3a, that it is not sufficiently broad? I have used every academic review written for this topic and it should more than adequately cover the book's scope and message. czar ♔ 19:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice. You've addressed most of the minor concerns here. Updated assessment. I probably overstepped on suggesting another image. The one that's here is fine. I've updated the rationale on the image a bit, it was missing a couple trivial "required components" listed here. The issue of comprehensiveness still remains though. For comparison, The Red Badge of Courage is a featured article, so I should not hold this article to quite that standard, but notice how it has a bunch of information about the background, publication, plot, style, etc. The Stolen Childhood article as it stands covers the themes/content of the book well, but it needs more explanation of the structure, genre, scholarly context, etc. A few things to explain better what I mean:

• "broadly documents nineteenth..." begins to address the structure, but as someone who has not read this book, it is difficult to discern whether this means a broad range of case studies or a look at the hypothetical "average slave child" in various locations and periods.
• Similarly, the book is described as a "history book". This is too broad by itself. Pick a phrase to put in the opening like "scholarship", "original research", "case studies", "accessible overview", "introduction", "reference material", etc. It would help a great deal if the scope of the "Blacks in the Diaspora series" was explained at least briefly.
• Splitting the "overview" section is a requirement. The article should separate information about the author/publishing of the book from its contents. This helps cue the reader, and I think it will improve the organization of the prose significantly as well.
• "The book is divided into eight[notes 1] even chapters" Are these by theme, by chronology, or maybe by case study? Explain the structure explicitly.

The article is quite close to a pass, I can update it when the last few kinks get taken out.Forbes72 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will be unavailable from now until around Jan 4th. I will be sure to check back then. Forbes72 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: WP:FUR—I used the upload wizard, which automates cover art uploads and thus forces the uploader to fill out every relevant field in the fair use rationale, so it probably isn't necessary to add more text unless the wizard process is wrong. Re: "history book", I used that phrasing as a Wikipedia category

(edit conflict) Sounds good. I split the sections (in good faith, since I don't exactly agree with the reasoning), and made a few fixes to the effect of your bulleted points.

I looked through a few of the GA history books for kicks and didn't find a direct analog, but I wouldn't quite put this topic near The Red Badge of Courage. It's my understanding that comprehensiveness covers everything that the RS cover. In this case, the book is not nearly as monumental. It has no plot or bold legacy, its publication was not an involved process with ample RS coverage, and not a single review provided a chapter-by-chapter breakdown (likely because none felt it was necessary, and the book is repetitive and blurs chapters anyway). It has very little structure, as already mentioned, but I grouped the synopsis by the major themes to be a bit more obvious. As for the "broadly documents" comment, the book's a bit of both. I only have the RS to work with. The gist of the book is that historical sources were used to palpate for vague truths about life as a slave child, including their treatment and testimony and experiences. (The short of this is that I think it's important to keep the scope of two drastically different GA eligibility relative and proportional.) Anyway, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thank you for the detailed review, and happy holidays czar ♔ 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You definitely have. Obviously a one-to-one comparison with Red Badge of Courage is unfair; it was just the first book I could find that exemplified the kind of section organization I was thinking of.(different genre of course) Congratulations on your work on the article, it looks like you have done the lion's share of the edits. It fits the criteria in all respects, and in some, such as the copious footnotes, exceeds them quite a bit. Forbes72 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Now that the review is concluded, I would welcome feedback from you on the way I carried out the assessment. This is entirely optional. My goal was to be clear, helpful, and follow the guidelines for the GA review. I want to improve the review for everyone involved. If you decide not to leave feedback, that is entirely acceptable as well. Forbes72 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)