Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Maya Angelou works/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:19, 11 August 2012 [1].

List of Maya Angelou works

edit

List of Maya Angelou works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox


Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because not only does it met the criteria, it is an important list of works by an important figure in American literature. My eventual goal is to have a Maya Angelou FT, which requires that lists in the topic be featured. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments First, this is a nice piece of work and I learned something more from the lead. I assume that other listings without in-line citations are cited from Maya Angelou: A Glorious Celebration. ? One minor mistake is that you are using a spaced m-dash for ranges (for example "1954—1955"); instead, it should be an unspaced n-dash. I found the same format in Ref 9. If you fix those I am happy to support. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose primarily on lack of refs and possible lack of comprehensiveness.
But ref1 states that the list is from the Gillespie et al. source unless otherwise stated. There are several lists of Angelou's bibliography, but some of them are incorrect and outdated. Gillespie is the most recent list, so that's why it was included. The lead is very well sourced, I think. George Orwell bibliography has even fewer refs than this one currently has. Do you have any suggestions about how to better handle it?
Fixed.
  • The first sentence doesn't read well at all for me, there's a mix of singular and plural, there's a number of run-ons, and it makes for awkward prose.
Improved, hopefully to your satisfaction.
  • "is best known for her series of six autobiographies" this isn't in the reference, it says she's "best known as a writer".
Clarified.
  • I don't understand the relevance of the final sentence of the first para of the lead.
    Removed sentence.
  • "Angelou has used the same ..." this sentence runs on too many times for me as well.
Improved, including removing the final phrase and clarified Loomis' retirement. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, 1969." why is 1969 in italics? And why the period?
Ooo, good catch. Can't believe that you're the first person to see that! Notice that there are periods after each item. Is that wrong; should I remove them?
Actually, there aren't periods after every item (e.g. A Song Flung Up to Heaven, 2002[21]), but in any case, yes, I would remove them, these are not complete sentences and as such don't need periods. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed periods as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this list complete? If not it should be tagged with {{incomplete list}}. For instance, the template at the bottom has "Adjoa Amissah" but that's not in the article anywhere...
    • Well, it's complete as far as Angelou is concerned. It includes everything she's done in her career up to today. When she publishes or does something new, it will be added, even though that's probably doubtful because she's in her eighties, you know. ;) I don't think that the tag is necessary. Um, sorry for being dense, but I don't see Amissah anywhere.
Ah, now I see, thanks. Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that's it? I didn't check all of the template, that one stood out for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Entire template checked and corrected. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(writer/director]," should be a closing parenthesis not bracket.
Ooo, another one! Nice! ;)
  • "Nicholas Ashford and Valerie Simpson),[17] " no opening parenthesis.
  • "A Song Flung Up to Heaven (2002)[23]" why is year in parentheses?
Fixed the above two silly typos. Thanks.
  • "Talk Host" do you mean "Talkshow host"?
Um, no; it's two words [2]
Okay, do you mean "Talk show host"? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, yah. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should ref 2 be The Smithsonian (i.e. italics) like ref 21?
Again, you got it, thanks.
  • Ref 18 isn't a ref, it's a note.
Actually, it's an "explanatory note", and according to the MOS (WP:EXPLNOTE, it's appropriate to use them with citations.
  • The Washington Times has a publisher, but The New York Times and The Guardian don't. Be consistent.
I double-checked. The reason The Washington Times has a publisher is because the article was from the Associated Press. The other articles were written in-house.
But who writes the articles isn't relevant to who publishes the newspapers, surely? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [3], it's okay to use the newswire service under the publisher parameter. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing against that, but for the publications which have proper publishers, like The Guardian, why wouldn't you include the publisher? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because for the AP, it's important to note that's where the article came from. I've never seen publishers listed when the sources is written by a reporter from the news outlet. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not wishing to persist the argument, but I normally expect to see publishers for those works which may be ambiguous, e.g. not sure how many The Guardian there are, or The Times etc. I'd either use a location or a publisher or both. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think The Guardian is the only news outlet that's unclear. Added as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catches; this is exactly why we need reviews, so that other sets of eyes can catch stuff main editors miss. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some works are referenced directly, some have no indication of any reference, where would I find those cited?
Again, as ref1 states, anything not referenced was from Gillespie et. al. The references are sources that discuss the item.
Perhaps just at the top of the list, you should have a statement like "Unless specifically references exist, works are sourced to [1]..." or similar because most of us wouldn't read across the note in ref 1 (which is a footnote, so goes missing in the refs) to understand it means that some items don't need individual refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Where do you recommend this going? The top of the lead, or in the lead's first paragraph, or at the end of the lead, or right before the list begins in the "Literature" section? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say just before the list begins in the "Literature" section. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um guys, this has been languishing here for awhile--it is the oldest entry. Is there anything else that needs to be done? To me, it seems like every concern has been addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like all other featured processes, we need to get some kind of community consensus to promote. I suggest you contact the relevant projects and those editors you think who may be interested in such a list to come here and give their review. We don't just promote lists because no-one's here to review it, nor would FAC, FTC, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments. I'm leaning towards supporting this one but I've a few minor things to raise.
  • The quote box might be better served being raised up a little, perhaps being inserted between paragraphs one and two; as it is, it seems a bit out of place.
Done. You're right; it does look better now.
Got it.
  • I'm thinking that "...poetry, plays, and screenplays for television and film" might read better as "..poetry, plays, screenplays and teleplays"; there's some brevity gained but the use of another "–plays" might necessitate switching "poetry" and "plays" around. Just throwing it out as an idea, as currently there are two instances of this list in the exact same wording; one of them should really be changed to some degree.
Ok, done as suggested.
  • Definitely include a link to PBS, it's not something I expect non-Americans to recognise.
Done.
Overall the list looks comprehensive and well-sourced, there's just the above issues with presentation. If you do decide to link everything that's relevant (the films, poetry, etc. There's more than just what's specified above) then I don't mind actually sitting and doing that myself but I didn't want to trundle in without inquiring why it's not already present. GRAPPLE X 19:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I got all the links that needed to be added. Let me know if I missed anything, please. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I've been a little slow in getting to the last comments; I've been out of town over the weekend and have been playing catch-up. Will address the rest now.


Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Quick little comment: As of this date stamp there are eleven nominations older than this at FLC
This has been an issue in the past with this list. Its original title was Works of Maya Angelou, but it was eventually changed by another editor to List of Maya Angelou works; see diff. I assumed good faith and trusted that he was correct in the title change.
Um, not sure what you're asking?
  • Why isn't the list chronological? In the film and television section, for example, I see 1972 - 1990, then suddenly 1975, then 1968
Fixed.
Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind fairly bare bones lists, but perhaps a bit of bibliographical information would be useful (publishers for books, network for TV, studio for films, etc.)
Made the additions. If there's anything else I should add, let me know.
Looks good, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simple fixes: added the date, and changed to a more reliable source. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have no issues with the article, there is a cite error but I'm sure that'll be quickly fixed. Afro (Talk) 09:35, 11 August 2012 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Maya_Angelou_works/archive1&oldid=1061972473"