This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the lead we have: and marries a South African freedom fighter. - but in the plot section we have: In 1961, Angelou meets South African freedom fighter Vusumzi Make. They never marry, but she and Guy move with him, first to London and then to Cairo, Egypt, where she plays "official wife to Make, who had become a political leader in exile". So, which is it?
Well, it's both. They were acting like they were married, but technically, they never were; they never went to a judge, priest, or minister to make it official. But I can see how it could be confusing, so I changed the lead - replaced "married" with "became romantically involved with". As for the plot section, I do say that she "plays" Make's official wife. Doesn't that imply that they behaved as if they were married?
Christine (
talk)
12:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)reply
On-line references check out. I assume good faith for the off-line ones. No sign of OR. Sources appear to be RS.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
My concern is the lack of a Reception section. Although there is plenty of scholarly and critical comment throughout, the article lacks a reception section and publication details as recommended in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. The reception section should contain contemporaneous reviews, etc. sales figures would be good as well.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editorializing
I only read through the intro part, so this is limited to the intro, but I do not think this follows a neutral point of view. I'll admit it doesn't advance controversial opinions. I agree that Angelou is a great writer, but I still think that saying such is my opinion of her, which should not be in an encyclopedic article. I marked the spots in the intro that I felt were editorializing. I think it would work better to just find a source that said the opinions therein. --
Wikigold96 (
talk)
06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Copy-edit notes
Removed text
Removed from 'Background' section because this passage doesn't concern the book or its background, but heaps praise upon the author per
WP:COATRACK:
Writer Julian Mayfield calls I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Angelou's first autobiography, "a work of art that eludes description", and states that Angelou's work sets a precedent not only for other Black women writers, but for the genre of autobiography as a whole.[1]
For example, while Angelou was composing her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name, she was concerned about how her readers would react to her disclosure that she had been a prostitute. Her husband Paul Du Feu talked her into publishing the book by encouraging her to "tell the truth as a writer" and "be honest about it".[2] Through the writing of her life stories, however, Angelou has become recognized and highly respected as a spokesperson for Blacks and women.[3] It made her, as scholar Joanne Braxton has stated, "without a doubt, ... America's most visible black woman autobiographer".[4]
Wow, you did such an extensive copyedit! Much appreciated. Sorry it't taken me a little while to address you feedback and comments; I've had other fish to fry, as they say, both here and IRL.
References
^Cite error: The named reference songbird was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Cite error: The named reference lupton-14 was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Cite error: The named reference poetry was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
^Cite error: The named reference braxton was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).
Removed references
Removed because superfluous once text above is removed - if replacing these, remove the 'nowiki' tags.
<ref name="braxton">{{cite book | last = Braxton | first = Joanne M. | editor = Joanne M. Braxton | title = Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings: A Casebook | year = 1999 | publisher = Oxford Press | location = New York | isbn = 0-19-511606-2 | chapter = Symbolic Geography and Psychic Landscapes: A Conversation with Maya Angelou | page = 4}}</ref>
That's fine, and to be expected when removing stuff like you did. I'm fine with the changes you made, although it did get through a GAC with what you call "biased" content. One of the reasons you ask for an outside copy-edit, though, is so that un-biased editors look at an article with fresh eyes. I admit that I am biased about Maya Angelou; I respect her greatly, which is obvious from all the work I've done on several articles about her over the span of many years. Again, the reason I ask for copy-edits for her articles. Understand, though, that much of the reviews about Angelou take on that biased language, so it's not just me. I look forward to seeing what the reviewers in FAC think about it.
</references>
Final comments
Despite the copy-edit, the article is still full of essay-like comments, such as "According to (author)", "(Author) says that ..." etc. The constant namedropping of academics makes it read like a college essay IMO. I didn't remove these because that goes well beyond my remit as a copy-editor, and would probably result in confusing prose. Cheers,
Baffle gab1978 (
talk)
05:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)reply