Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Gather Together in My Name/archive1

Comments from Cirt (addressed)

1. NOTE: Please respond, below all the comments, and not interspersed in the individual points, thanks!
2. Overall, again, quite high quality contribution from Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs).
3. Image review: (1) I'd suggest for File:Gathertogether1.jpg, using WP:FURME to help expand the fair use rationale a bit more. (2) File:Angeloupoem.jpg - This one checks out just fine.
4. Background - subsect, Title - not sure why one quotation is italicized in the article, while the rest are not. For standardization and uniformity, best to have no quotations italicized.
5. Plot summary - nice use of page numbers for direct quotes in this sect, that's good.
6. Reviews - suggest changing name of this sect to "Reception", or "Critical reception".
7. Reviews - recommend removing the pull-quote box, those have been highly criticized in the past on other quality reviews in which I've participated.
8. Notes - sect mixes full cites with harvard notation cites. Suggest using a model like The General in His Labyrinth and Mario Vargas Llosa. Recommend splitting out the harvard notation cites into its own sect, and the full cites into the Works cited sect.
9. See also - missing. Consider adding See also sect, with a few recommended links for a curious reader interested in perusing other relevant Wikipedia articles, perhaps 3-5 links.
10. Further reading - missing. Consider adding Further reading sect, with a few recommended books and/or some academic scholarship for curious readers.
11. Portals - missing. Suggest using {{Portal bar}} to add relevant portals as a footer at the bottom of the article.
12. NOTE: Please respond, below all the comments, and not interspersed in the individual points, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Cirt, and thanks for the review.

• #3: Pretty sure that I've done this. Please let me know if I did it right.
• #4: Quote is italicized to differentiate it as a Biblical quote. If you don't like it, I can un-italicize it, although you are the first reviewer to make a note of it.
• #6: Done.
• #7: Done, although again, you're the first person to give this feedback, and it's not something I've seen criticized before. I tend to use quoteboxes when I can't find a suitable image, to vary the appearance. I recognize, though, that having images isn't mandatory. If you or anyone else can think of a good image to go in this section, please suggest one.
• #8: I don't use Harvard at all here; I don't like it because I think it's complicated, unwieldy, and hard to both the reader and editor to navigate. My model is articles like Emily Dickinson and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, both FAs. I hope that you're not demanding that I change my sources format, since it's my understanding that any format is all right if it's consistent, which is it here.
• #9: I'm not sure what links to add in a "See also" section. All of Angelou's autobiographies, many of her other works and poetry, and other related articles (i.e., Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies) are in the Works template at the bottom of the page. I've always considered it, which inclusion is consistent along all MA articles, a better alternative for a "See also" section. Could you make any suggestions?
• #10: Again, I'm not sure this is necessary. All of the pertinent scholarship is already mentioned, and if readers want to know more about Angelou and her other works, they can look at her other articles here and the scholarship about her in those articles. Angelou isn't like other major writers; relatively little has been written about her and I use pretty much everything in each article. Again, any suggestions?
• #11: Sorry, I don't mean to be contrary, but I'm not sure the purpose of including portals, either. I read that the template is supposed to go into the "See also" section, but if we don't have one here, why include the template? Also, Angelou isn't really included in any portal. Suggestions?

Again, thanks for the review and helpful suggestions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything looks better except I'm still seeing the italics for a quotation in the Title sect. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've never seen that done before on Wikipedia, certainly not FAs. It seems a bit unencyclopedic and POV to have some quotes italicized and others not. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yah, it's just the Bible. But easily enough changed, so have done so. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks for such responsiveness to my comments. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)