Talk:A Song Flung Up to Heaven/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 07:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. Binksternet (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are good, no dead ones.
No disambiguation needed.
In the quote box the double hyphen should be changed to an em dash as that is what is used in other parts of the article.
Done.
There is an em dash incorrectly serving in place of an en dash for a page range in the John McWhorter reference.
Um, there are no page ranges in either of the McWhorter refs.
Down in the Bibliography section, there are some numbers that refer to the print version of the "Saint Maya" piece. The numbers are as follows: 226, no. 19: 35—41.

I think the above numbers translate to "Volume 226, number 19, pages 35 to 41." Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Dunbar poem: following the word flings, the dash should be an em dash.
In the quote box, the title I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings should be in italics.
Two above done.
I will continue reviewing later. Binksternet (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, especially for the dashes catches. My old eyes don't always see them. Christine (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some instances of "African American" used as an advective are hyphenated and some are not. The style chosen should be sustained throughout the article.
Again, I'll put the blame on my old eyes. The convention throughout all MA articles is that it's non-hyphenated, since that's what African American does. When it's hyphenated, it's usually because the source does it, and I missed changing it.
Why does Angelou have "notoriety" in the lead section? No article body text supports this view.
The body uses the word "recognition", so I changed it in the lead.
In the "Background" section, Caged Bird is used to refer to the first instance of I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings. The full title should be used here as it is the first appearance in the article body. A later use of the full title could be shortened or eliminated.
You're right, of course. That's the trouble with familiarity with a subject; you assume that everyone knows what you're thinking. ;) Christine (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph of "Background" should evolve in chronological order.
I understand that it's convention to write chronologically in an encyclopedia, but there's a problem with doing that here. First, I talk about the publication of the book and the span of years between it and Traveling Shoes and Caged Bird. Then I talk about her poetry, volumes of which span throughout her writing career, and her collection of poetry published in 1994. Then I talk about her inaugural speech in 1993, which is last because it explains why she had become so well-known and recognized. I close the paragraph with the spoken word album in 2002. See the problem? If I write it chronologically, where should the poetry go? And the mentions of her books of essays? If you could suggest a better way to organize it, please advise. Christine (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "The 2002 spoken word album by the same name, based on the book, received a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 2003" is not clear about what album is being discussed. The album should be named explicitly: A Song Flung Up to Heaven. The sentence jumps out chronologically, coming as it does after a 1993 event.
Moved to end of section and clarified album name as per your request.
Error in the plot section: "...diverting the Africa first to Mexico..." the Africa should be the African, or the man.
Grr, what a silly error. Thanks for the catch.Christine (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Style" section, the phrase "continued the tradition of African American autobiography" is unexplained. What is "the tradition of African American autobiography"? What makes African American autobiography different from other autobiography?
That's funny, that line is the first line of 3 out of 5 of the articles about MA's other autobiographies, and they're all GAs and one is a FA. It passed the other reviews just fine. But I believe in being reasonable and taking direction from my reviewers (for the most part), so I removed the offending sentence. ;)
If there is a topic there, somebody could write the article African American autobiography. Heh heh. Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trim this sentence: "Lupton insisted that all of Angelou's autobiographies conformed to the genre's standard structure..." Change it to "Lupton insisted all of Angelou's autobiographies conform to the genre's standard structure..."
Done.
This sentence is not needed in the styles section, and should be removed as redundant: "The book is framed by two "calamitous events"—the assassinations of Malcolm X and King."
Done.
The Amy Strong sentence reads with difficulty. It can be broken up into two sentences.
Trim this: "The assassinations Angelou reported on in Song provided the book" could be simply "The assassinations provided the book".
Thanks, got it. Christine (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This initial review is complete. I am putting the GAN on hold pending article improvements. This article needs very little improvement to make GA. I'm confident it will pass. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, B. Things have been busy IRL, and internet protests and outages due to snowstorms have prevented me from dealing with your review. It's my intention to work on it over the weekend. Christine (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Nothing's on fire here, it can wait for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, and I appreciate the review. That was pretty easy! Much easier than the other frying pan I've been dealing with this week! ;) Christine (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed. Great working with you! And a fine article. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done -- congrats! --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]