Talk:Wouldn't Take Nothing for My Journey Now/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 10:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial readthrough

On first pass through the article, this looks solid, well written, and close to promotion. Thanks for creating it and for bringing it this far. I've made a few edits as I went for copyediting and stylistic reasons; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with, and double-check that I haven't accidentally introduced any errors. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I notice the article at times uses "African American" and at times "black". It didn't terribly bother me, but do you think this is worth making consistent?

The two words are used interchangeably. I tried to follow what the sources use, especially when using quotes. The interesting thing is that Angelou never uses "African American", so I've tended to do the same, except in the lead to introduce the subject or when sources use it.

• "The character sketches are consistent with her descriptions of the people she describes, including of herself, throughout her autobiographies" -- this sentence confuses me a bit--maybe it's the "her descriptions of the people she describes". But I'm also not clear what it means to say that they're consistent with descriptions in her autobiography. Does this mean she's writing about the same people? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This sentence needed some tightening, so this is what I did: "Her character sketches are similar to the descriptions of people, including those of herself, that appear throughout her autobiographies." Some of her sketches are of the same people that appear in her autobiographies, including herself and her mother, while others are not. I hope that my current version retains that ambiguity that I think the source was also trying to achieve.

Some suggestions for expansion

There's not a huge amount out there on this book, so the brief length doesn't bother me much. I think the "main aspects" are covered, save the book's financial success (more below). But I added here everything else I found, too, for you to take or leave. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• The book was apparently a "blockbuster bestseller" per the NYT; this financial success is worth adding to the article and probably to the lead.[1][2] Indeed, it appears to have been on the NYT bestseller list for a while: [3] It's mentioned in a few places that the book is believed to have funded Random House for the year: [4] and the NYT above.
• Here's an interesting bit about how she aimed for accessibility in the book: [5]
• A quote from the LA Times review may be worth including, since some far smaller papers are.[6] -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey thanks, these are very helpful. I made a pretty exhaustive search, through some university library databases, but I obviously missed a few. I've seen the NYT bestseller lists; the problem with them is that they don't give us what we need, which is how long the book was on the NYT list, and where on the list they were for how many weeks. We need a secondary source that provides that information, something that neither of us could find. I also found the commencement article; all it says is that the book was "best-selling", and I made the decision that it wasn't enough information to include, since it seems like it's just an off-hand comment. I'll go through the other sources you found, though, and add important and valid information. Please give me a day or so to complete the task; I'll let you know when that is. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Finished adding the information from the above news articles. I used the L.A. Times article and not The NYT article about the book carrying Random House because both articles had the same information. Thanks again for the assistance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! Thanks for your fast response. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor prose questions above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	That the book was a bestseller should probably be mentioned in the lead.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The book's massive financial success seems worth adding.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass