Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 02:21, 12 February 2008.

David Suzuki: The Autobiography

[edit]
Check external links

A relatively short article on a book published in 2006. It is as comprehensive as the sources will allow but I would like to see if there is anything else that can be done for it. maclean 19:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Not well-written. The glitches in the opening sentences indicate that the whole article needs serious attention, preferably by someone new to it.

  • Second sentence: "the last 20 years of his life"—what, he's dead? "Past" if not. "But" is wrong, since it's not contradicting the previous clause.
  • Do we need little-known Anglophone countries such as Canada and Australia to be linked? Why dilute the useful links? And why isn't Suzuki himself linked ....?
  • "It begins as a chronological autobiography with Suzuki recounting his childhood,..."—Ungrammatical noun + ing. "in which S. recounts his childhood ..."
  • "Suzuki highlights the impacts that internment had on him as a child and throughout his life"—clumsy. Try "Suzuki highlights the impacts on him of internment since his childhood"?
  • "The book progresses towards using a memoir approach"—meaning what, exactly?

Can't bear to read any more. Tony (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Gaak. I'll ignore the writing and focus on the content. The article is more about the author than about the book. However, the author is dealt with in another article. On its purported subject, the book, this article is rather thin. Certainly not FA material. --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You point out two things here: (1) too thin is difficult to action. What specifically were you hoping to find? (2) too much focus on the author/subject he is written about in 3 places: Background (standard context of who the author is and why he wrote the book), Content (what is written in the book - 70 years condensed into 405 pages condensed into 3 paragraphs), and Introduction (nothing new). Perhaps this is an organizational issue? I will examine the Content section to orient it more around it being a review of the book's contents, rather than his life in general. --maclean 05:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at some other articles about autobiographies. There are a couple of under-developed themes in this article: chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, different editions for different markets (different jackets, forewords, etc), marketing plans, influence of publisher, how much paid to author, time required to write it, industry news about the book (trade news, not market-oriented reviews), etc. An article about an autobiography need not (and perhaps should not) summarize the autobiography; to the extent that you re-hash the book, I would want to know about any important new information or new photographs not published elsewhere. Hope that gives you some ideas re how to proceed. --Una Smith (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the speedy elaboration. I can expand on the chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, and marketing plans. I have found no evidence of distinctions between editions or influence of publisher. The author's salary would be interesting, where is that kind of info published? The industry news and time spent writing are grey areas - there is evidence but little that is concrete. For example, none of the references (reviews and interviews) say how long it took him to write, but I can say his last book was published in 2002. With the industry news, there are 3 industry awards listed and I can work in a review from the Quill & Quire, otherwise I only found generic blurbs in the 'upcoming' or 'new' sections - should I note that it was mentioned in these, perhaps add them to the Reference section? Also, could you point me to those developed autobiography articles? The only comparable one I've found is Night (book) (which is subject to much more academic research, of course). --maclean 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I can expand on what new information is presented in the book by expanding the Content section. But as Suzuki writes in the preface do 'not expect any startling revelations'. maclean 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize, requested expansions: chronicle vs memoir, working vs published title, marketing, rough timeframe, review in industry news (including industry awards, and new material. Reduced content details. maclean 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note was left on Una Smith's talk page [1] regarding the work. maclean 23:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think the writing is that bad, although there are a few places where it could be improved, nor do I agree that it focuses too much on the subject. I did find myself wishing that some of the statements were expanded on, but I am unsure whether there are sources available to do that. Advice below. Full disclosure: I came to this article after a request from maclean for more eyes.
    • I don't really like these sentences "Suzuki calls his father's berating for not running for his high school's student presidency as the turning point of his life. He did not think he could win because he felt like an "outsider" for being the only student of Japanese-decent, along with his sister, and not belonging to any popular cliques. After his father pressured him to try, he ran and unexpectedly won on that "outsider" platform." The sentences seem a little unwieldy and the verb tenses don't seem to be quite right. I suspect there is a way to reword this to make it flow a bit better.
    • Is there any information about how/whether the information from his first autobiography is presented differently in this one?
    • Of the 6 sentences in the third paragraph in Content section, 4 start with He or Suzuki. Can this be varied a bit?
    • Verb tenses are a little off. In some cases events in Suzuki's life are described in past tense, and in others they are described in present tense.
    • Are they any works that discuss his thoughts "concerning climate change, celebrity status, technolog and death"? I'm wondering if any of those were interesting enough to be covered a bit.
    • Are there any examples of "instances of blurting out surprising statements"? I'd like to see an example.
    • I'd like to see a little more in-depth information on the themes in the novel, if possible.
    • The first paragraph of Publication and reception section does not flow well
    • Some of your references have a retrieval date listed and some do not. Please add one for the links that it is missing.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I re-worded the sentences in your first point. I can expand upon the differences between autobiographies as the Litrary Review of Canada article does a good job at this. I can also expand upon 'his thoughts concerning...' to match UnaSmith's request for new information presented in the book. Not all the references are available online, so they do not all have retrieval dates. maclean 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/David_Suzuki:_The_Autobiography/archive1&oldid=1078798665"