Talk:I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

Final preparations for FAC

This is my "last-minute" checklist for FAC:

• Final copyedit

I did this, and left some questions in my edit summaries. Scartol • Tok 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw those, and addressed them. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Recheck all images

• We just need specific information on the Stamps census information which is the basis of the Stamps map - that is leftover from my review above. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The description page states that it was created based on information in the public domain. Is that enough? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say, trying to track down the census data used for this image seems a little extreme to me. The image matches this map of Stamps, so we know it's generally accurate — and we're agreed that the image is free, yeah? Scartol • Tok 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Image information must be verifiable, too. That means we have to source it at the same level as article information. We can't just say "US census bureau" - we have to give readers the full citation. In cases such as this, leaving a note for the image creator to add the needed info usually solves the problem. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, made the request. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The last time that person contributed was November 2008. I'll see what I can find. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added links from the US census bureau. This is now taken care of. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Final MOS check (I recommend asking Epbr123 to run a MOS check - he knows every rule)

Made the request. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Epbr123 hasn't edited in about a month. We may have to forgo this and just deal with it at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel pretty confident that I caught most of the MOS stuff on my last copyedit. I think we're looking pretty good! Scartol • Tok 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ask Brighterorange to run his dashbot over the article

Made this request, too. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Click on every link to make sure it goes to the correct article

• I've done this. Awadewit (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proofread

• I've also done some more copyediting. Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nominate for FAC

Feel free to modify this checklist or dispense with it, if you are just ready to nominate. Awadewit (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like we're ready. This article is VERY different than the first time I looked at it and made my first edit, way back in Oct. 2007. We should all be very proud. Should we go for it, then, and put it up for nomination? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead - you should be really proud of all the hard work you've done. This looks excellent! Awadewit (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and done. I'm so nervous! And excited, too. Yes, I am very proud. Thanks to you, Awadewit, and Scartol and Moni3 for your help. Now I will archive this talk page. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very proud indeed. Off we go to FACland! I have a good feeling about this one. Scartol • Tok 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proud--that's the Word on the Street! Actually, I'm reminded of this Sesame Street clip, which is very appropriate for all of us. ;) (Most of you already know that SS is the other WP project that's grabbed my attention these days.) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

Whoo hoo! We did it! Thanks to all who worked tirelessly to get this article to featured article. It took so much work, but it was so worth it. The first time this article was nominated was a year ago, in anticipation of Maya Angelou's 80th birthday. Better late than never, as they say, eh? I think it'd be a fitting tribute if this article was on the main page for her 81th birthday on April 4. It may mean that it's the shortest time at FA before being put on the main page, but it won't hurt to try. So that's where we're going next. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is for you, and everyone else who effervesces the aroma of a woman in full bloom. Maya Angelou writes for Hallmark. Yee haw, FSF. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And I'll one-up-ya on another Maya Angelou parody. [1] Should we start a parody section on her bio page? ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Image placement

Without wanting to rain on the FA-stivities, we seem to have a dilemma about where to place the images and quote boxes starting with the "Racism" section. In the article's current incarnation, the pic of MLK and the quote box at the start of the "Rape" section are just below the third-level (===) headings. This is a big MOS no-no. Alas, my response in the past has been to move the image up to just above the third-level heading, but apparently this is frowned upon because it removes the image from the technical sectioning that it's supposed to be associated with. (Apparently this is a particular problem with assisted-reading software.)

The MOS suggests moving images down, but we don't seem to have much room to do that sort of thing here. Maybe we need to remove one of the quote boxes in order to make room? (Not that I want to start a big discussion about quote boxes, since I know that sometimes spins out of control, heh.) I recommend we remove the quote box with the poem excerpt, move the MLK pic down a paragraph, and move the Opal Moore quote box to the right side. Scartol • Tok 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this problem started when SandyGeorgia had a MOS issue about the way MA was facing. Would the solution be to simply move the images to where they were before that? Just asking. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked some of the images and quoteboxes. The racism section may still sandwich the text, but the upright tags help with that. If people make a fuss, you may have to make a decision between the image or Dr. King and the final quote of the book. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Room for improvement

Congratulations on making the main page! It's great to see Maya after a few days of hunting dogs and meningitis. However, I wince a little when I see the word "victim" so early on. I suppose that's one way of summarizing Angelou's first volume - but does she use that actual word or not? If she does, an inline citation would be great. My memory is that she doesn't, so...where's the citation? Is the case that lead articles are de-wikified to be less intimidating to the average reader? I would hope not! I'm too new to this aspect of Wiki to know...but, if language had to be chosen to summarize Maya's views of her own childhood, I think perhaps the victim-word could have been qualified. It's complex - which means that there's no excuse for oversimplification. I could have equally selected the phrase "inferiority complex" as my example. IIRC, neither links to another WikiArticle, but one of them certainly should (inferiority complex). Equally, I could have chosen "racism," which is not a simple word - but an entire set of WikiArticles. It should have gone to those places, yes? LeValley (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization usage

In the past couple of days, I went through this article and changed some capitalizations. The changes were inspired by User:Moni3, who copyedited Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas in anticipation of re-submitting that article for FAC. Instead of re-creating that discussion here, I refer you to it: [2] Christine (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"the tradition of African American autobiography"

The article contains this sentence: "Angelou's book also continues the tradition of African American autobiography." What is "African American autobiography"? The reader is left unenlightened. If African American autobiography is different enough to be recognizable, and if it is so established that it can be described as a tradition, I should think an article could be written about it. At any rate, the above-quoted sentence should have some explanatory text, defining "African American autobiography". Otherwise, it should be struck. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's struck. The funny thing is that this article has been an FA since 2009, and it passed with this sentence. Portions of the articles about Dr. Angelou's other five autobiographies are all based upon this article, and five have this offending sentence, even though they're all at least GAs. Well, four now because the GA reviewer of the article about her final book, A Song Flung Up to Heaven, had the same issue with it and requested that it be struck as well. Re: creating an article about African American autobiography: what a great idea, but so above my expertise. OTOH, so was Angelou and her writings before three years ago, and now look at where we are. It also demonstrates the systematic bias that's a fact of life in this project, which is a little bit improved with my body of work on MA here. Something to think about, anyway. Christine (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That GA reviewer was me! I drifted over here to pose the same question because I thought it was of wider interest than just one of the six autobiographies.

Regarding the notional article, African American autobiography, there is some relevant material out there in the literature. Roland Leander Williams, writing in 2000, "casts African American autobiographies as a form of the epic, in which learning creates a passage to freedom" in his book, African American autobiography and the quest for freedom. Rebecca Chalmers Barton has been called the first major critical analyst of black autobiographies, with her 1948 Witnesses for Freedom: Negro Americans in Autobiography, as described by William L. Andrews in "African-American Autobiography Criticism: Retrospect and Prospect", the eighth chapter of American Autobiography: Retrospect and Prospect edited by Paul John Eakin. More to the point of our discussion, William Pinar makes some observations about Angelou's writing in the context of African American autobiography. Pinar quotes Dr. Selwyn R. Cudjoe of Wellesley, and these others quote the same Cudjoe comment: Shari Benstock, Joanne M. Braxton, Darlene Clark Hine, Mari Evans, Susannah Radstone and Henry Louis Gates.

So, there's a there there. Somebody with literature chops can write the article and it could be pretty good. Deleting the sentence under discussion from this article about Angelou's writings is the quick and easy answer, I understand that. I think it could be reinserted later with better explanatory text and better sourcing. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, of course. I'm sure there are scores of books and articles about African American autobiography, starting with Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs and the slave narrative and ending with folks like Barack Obama and his three autobiographies. I don't have "literature chops", but there are folks who do, and they're probably aware of this discussion. Hint, hint. ;)

Infobox?

No infobox used? Template:Infobox book can be used here. (Its FA and hence best left for some regular editor to add it. Hence not being bold.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no infobox because reviewers have agreed that since they're optional, this sterling example of an FA doesn't need one. See [3] I'm no longer as adamant about the evil of infoboxes as I once was, but I still think that this article doesn't need one. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

As I'm improving this article for WP:URFA, I'm coming across some sources we should use. See below.

• Working class autobiography, pp. 33, 58-68 [4]

• MSNBC article about Angelou's activism [5] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Needs better utilization, Plimpton interview [6] Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Need for Motherhood section

I've been going through this article in the last month, returning to its sources in order to better mine them for content. It's become clear that there's a need to include content about the theme of motherhood in Caged Bird. To that end, see below for a list of the sources that discuss it, even briefly:

• McPherson (1999): pp. 32-33, 41-42
• Vermillion (1999): pp. 70ff
• Arensberg (1999): pp. 117ff, 120, 125-126
• Lupton (1999): entire article discusses motherhood/family; also includes next 4 autobiographies

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)