Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas/archive2
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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:12, 31 July 2010 [1].
Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas[edit]
Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it now fulfills the criteria. All of the issues I wasn't able to address during its first FAC have been adequately addressed, and it has been through a thorough copyedit by User: Moni3. It's a topic deserving of a FA; I have been improving all Maya Angelou articles, moving toward the larger goal of an eventual MA FT. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments
- Notes
Uncited statements (e.g. 5) are preferably avoided
Unformtted links should not be included in refs (see 26 and 30) The link to the online copy of the Lupton book should be incorporated with the book title in the list of books. There is another unformatted link in 53
- Ref 53 was done that way because notes don't lend themselves to the template style I use. I experimented with making the format at least appear to be accurate. I think I succeeded. As far as the Lupton refs go, I'm not so sure that the google version of books should be linked. The reason for that, as you probably already know, is that google doesn't tend to include the entire book, only random sections of it. I linked pages as they were available. I'm wondering if I should remove them because at the current time, google doesn't allow links like that anymore. In other words, it was a cool thing to do when this article was written, but it doesn't always work anymore. Christine (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove the links from the page numbers. The use of unformatted links is contrary to WP policy. Also, you haven't included links to other pages of the book which are available in the google link, so there is an issue of consistncy, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, done.
- I would remove the links from the page numbers. The use of unformatted links is contrary to WP policy. Also, you haven't included links to other pages of the book which are available in the google link, so there is an issue of consistncy, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To what do "Tate, p.153" and "Sartwell, p. 26" refer (Notes 31 & 33)? No corresponding books in list.
Small point, but you need to be consistent in spaces after "p." and "pp."
- Yah, no kidding. Fixed the one instance, the one typo. Christine (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the list of books:-
New York should not be abbreviated to "N.Y." when referring to the city.
- Thanks, got it. Christine (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What did you amend here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I misunderstand? I assumed that you were talking about making sure the references were standardized. From what I understand, in reference lists, when referring to the place of publication, it's appropriate to abbreviate "N.Y.", so that's what I did. Are you saying that I should change it to "New York"? Christine (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding (possibly misconceived) is that "N.Y." is the abbreviation for the state, not the city. However, the point is too trivial to pursue, and your usage is now consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I misunderstand? I assumed that you were talking about making sure the references were standardized. From what I understand, in reference lists, when referring to the place of publication, it's appropriate to abbreviate "N.Y.", so that's what I did. Are you saying that I should change it to "New York"? Christine (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What did you amend here? Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The convention on capitalisation in book titles should be followed, e.g. Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry like Christmas etc.
- Educate me, please. The author's convention is to capitalize "Like". Isn't that what we should use? Please refer me to the convention as stated in WP policy.
- WP:CAPS states: In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.. So, Like should be capitalised in your title - that was my slip. All your titles need attention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. I went through all the titles and made sure they were accurate. Christine (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't capitalised, per the above policy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At first, I didn't know what the heck you were talking about, Brian. The capitalization in this article's body is accurate, and follows WP convention. I wonder if you're referring to the titles in the Notes and References section, which are also standard, but follows the APA format of citing references. I have always used APA in every WP article I've ever edited, even some FACs that have been found acceptable. Then I go look at WP:CIT, and find that it calls for Oxford style. I have honestly never noticed that before. That being said, is it your expectation that I go back and "correct" them? See, I've always thought that as long as you're consistent and accurate (which I am), the style matters little. Christine (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am referring to the books in the Notes and References section. I think the requirement is that you follow the WP policy guideline on capitalisation of book titles as spelt out above, rather than the APA guideline. The intention is to get a consistency of format across all Wikipedia articles, not just consistency within one article. It's not a question of "correcting" anything, merely modifying to conform with the house style. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine! ;) Done. Please make sure I caught all the changes I needed to make.
- Yes, I am referring to the books in the Notes and References section. I think the requirement is that you follow the WP policy guideline on capitalisation of book titles as spelt out above, rather than the APA guideline. The intention is to get a consistency of format across all Wikipedia articles, not just consistency within one article. It's not a question of "correcting" anything, merely modifying to conform with the house style. Brianboulton (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At first, I didn't know what the heck you were talking about, Brian. The capitalization in this article's body is accurate, and follows WP convention. I wonder if you're referring to the titles in the Notes and References section, which are also standard, but follows the APA format of citing references. I have always used APA in every WP article I've ever edited, even some FACs that have been found acceptable. Then I go look at WP:CIT, and find that it calls for Oxford style. I have honestly never noticed that before. That being said, is it your expectation that I go back and "correct" them? See, I've always thought that as long as you're consistent and accurate (which I am), the style matters little. Christine (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't capitalised, per the above policy. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. I went through all the titles and made sure they were accurate. Christine (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CAPS states: In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be.. So, Like should be capitalised in your title - that was my slip. All your titles need attention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christine (talk) 12:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with two nitpicky comments:
- in the lead, rather than stating about the book "it tells" reword to something like "in the book Angelou writes ... "
- Changed by removing the semi-colon and separating the two thoughts. Changed to: In this volume, Angelou describes...
- expressing her impressions with where she travels > a tad awkward, needs to be reworded.
- Changed to: expressing her impressions about her travels
Still an interesting read, but improved quite a bit since the last time I read it. Well done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I reviewed this article during its first FAC nom, and I'm glad to see it's back and much improved! I fixed a few instances in which citations were duplicated, but that was the only technical niggle I could find, aside from a minor caption punctuation fix. Great work, Christine! María (habla conmigo) 18:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It's written rather professionally, and I think I can safely say that the prose is solid. Everything looks about right here. ceranthor 02:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there was, in the first FAC. I went on the record then that images have been a struggle for me with this article. There just aren't the appropriate free images available that would enhance it. User:Scartol had "volunteered" to create a map showing all of Angelou's travels in this book, but nothing came of it. (Maybe I'll ping him about it; not that he's busy enough as it is, anyway.) By comparison, finding images for MA's next book, The Heart of a Woman, which I just expanded and nominated for a DYK, was a piece of cake. All that to say that I really wish this article had more images, but I haven't been able to find solutions. If anyone can help, hint, hint. I don't think this issue should get in the way of an FA, though. Christine (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.