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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [1].

---

The Autobiography of Malcolm X[edit]

The Autobiography of Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC), — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Protonk (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because after a GAN and two peer reviews, we believe it is worthy of FA status. — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources were generally okayed at the last FAC. Few changes: some more citations have been added, along with an additional source. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images were also okayed at the last FAC, I don't think there've been any changes since. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question/Comments:
  • What does "...has been a consistent best-seller since its 1965 publication" mean? I mean, how are you determining it has been a best-seller (especially since it "returned to the best-seller lists in the 1990s"), and how are you defining "consistent"? Does your source offer details?
  • "Haley's contribution to the work is unique" The adjective "unique" is kinda empty and WP:PEACOCK-ish here.
    • Perhaps I am not being direct enough. This phrase needs to go. His contribution was not unique in any greater sense; ghostwriters pretend to adopt their subjects' voice all the time. And if he is unique in the sense that he was the only ghostwriter working with X, then the observation is trivial.
      • I'll be a bit direct in response. Unique may be the wrong word, but there is an abundance of research and criticism on the exact relationship of Haley to Malcolm. He was not a traditional ghostwriter nor was he a co-author, and the scope of their collaboration remains a subject of discussion. In that sense there is a great deal which is "unique" about his contribution. It is difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You said it is "...difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise". Well, that's kinda my point, and I see it as a flaw rather than a feature. There are stretches of text that are not direct quotes and... may be cited, I don't remember, but I was under the impression that they weren't... and those stretches... just kinda... lionize Haley without saying who said it, and (here's the worst part!) without putting any distance between Wikipedia and that praise. It's OK to say "Person A said Haley rocks, person B said Haley is a saint, person C said Haley walks on water, then turns it into wine after he steps on it". That's OK, so long as those people are WP:RS etc. But the text of the article seems to frame a narrative... in Wikipedia's voice. I hope I can explain this: I'm not knocking Haley. I'm expressing a feeling that Wikipedia is adopting a stance on Haley. Wikipedia has no voice.• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll step back a bit and say it is just as difficult to read the source material and conclude that the relationship between Malcolm and Haley was typical for a subject and a ghostwriter. I'm sympathetic to the claim that wikipedia shouldn't adopt a voice but I don't have any good solution apart from undertaking a "he said, she said" strategy. I'm less sure of the stance that the sources or the article are hagiographic--saying Haley's role was unique among ghostwriters (or some other flavor of the same claim) isn't saying that he is a great guy. It is simply an attempt to flesh out why and how the piece (AMX) adopted the voice it did. There are sections in the article describing Haley's attempts to censor AMX, to refactor Malcolms statements in order to preserve what Haley saw as a strong personal narrative and sources (namely Manning Marable) which plumb the depths of what book may have been written were Haley less intrusive. Their efforts are stymied by a lack of comment or cooperation from the heirs of either Haley or Malcolm. Without any secondary source gaining unrestricted access to the original marginal notes or letters of either man it is hard for a conclusive statement to be made. We are just doing our best to describe the "state of the art" in the sourcing today. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • On a tragic note the author of a recent book on malcolm X and Haley, Manning Marable, just passed away. His newest book (Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention) is likely to be a great source for the article. I'm sad to see the profession lose him. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All throughout this article, there are patches of text that... seem to have a voice. These may be adopting the voice(s) of one or more source(s)..? It seems especially glaring since there are other patches that are kinda bare-bones and rat-a-tat-tat.. sorry if this vague and unactionable. I'm thinking aloud here. Your thoughts are invited. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Consistent best-seller": The source says "Given the compelling story The Autobiography of Malcolm X tells and the best-seller status it has enjoyed since publication in 1965, its passage to film would seem to have been a fait accompli long before "X" billboards hyping Spike Lee's much-anticipated film began popping up all over New York and beyond." The book has experienced strong sales throughout its history; according to a biography of Betty Shabazz, she was receiving royalties equivalent to an annual salary,[2] and she was only getting half of the royalties! In the early 1990s, the book actually returned to The New York Times Best Seller list. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll think about how this can be reworded.
  • "intentionally subsumed his authorial voice"... I don't think "subsumed" is the word you are looking for here.
  • On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X By Louis A. DeCaro, Jr. p. 4, haley edited his work with the assistance of Murray Fisher, associate editor for Playboy • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not gonna fly my colors just yet, but I can feel myself leaning toward Support. I have to type quickly without double-checking my thoughts but... There doesn't seem to be enough mention of the controversy about the accuracy of some details of Malcolm's life. Who said it? Where? The Summary section feels skimpy, especially since the second paragraph might need to be moved elsewhere... It might need to list all chapters and give a one-sentence summary of each, following the style of others (Bloom I think it was)... The critical reception part... I see very good references there but... something feels missing. Is there mention of the controversy in the WP:LEDE? If not, it must go there... The writing is much better than many other FACs and I feel myself accepting it more... It may be a while before I log in again. • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the comments about the critical reception completely. My fear is that there are no great sources which take to task the reviewers or attempt to stitch together a general picture of critique and reception. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a response to several (indeed, most) of my comments. Is silence disagreement, or...? • Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes since the last FAC, I have a couple of comments:

• "The influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on the perspective of its readers has often been acknowledged." My problem here is that the article seems to assume at the outset that the book has been influential (which it undoubtedly has) and then only look for acknowledgement of that fact. The article should seek to establish that it has been influential first. Perhaps something like "Several critics have noted the influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on its readers", and then you let the quotes do the talking (thinking aloud here).
• A similar tense problem to last time: "Charles Solomon writes", "Howard Bruce Franklin described", "Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature credits" (the latter two in the same sentence). To me, it seems clumsy.

Just some thoughts. Apterygial ^talk 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I made that edit. I don't agree with your opinion that "The influence that [it] can have... has been acknowledged" assumes influence, while "Several critics have noted.." does not. I was trying to escape the tedium of repeated sentence structures... However, if you dislike the wording, WP:SOFIXIT. The structure of the sentence is not a key issue... As for the tense problem, I agree, and was thinking about what to do with that. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll agree my alternative wording is not much better, but my point still stands. Similar to your point above, Ling.Nut, that the article has adopted a voice. It's certainly not a major point, but if any of the noms can offer an alternative wording, I'd be happy to hear it. Apterygial ^talk 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I fixed the verb tenses in the "Legacy" section.— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tenses are now fine, but I'm still interested if the noms have any alternative wording for that first sentence. Apterygial ^talk 23:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your input Apterygial, what is it about the first sentence that needs fixing? — GabeMc (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See my first bullet-point above; is there anyway it can be worded so that the quotes establish it has been influential, rather than the article assuming it from the off? Apterygial ^talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give an example of a source which would establish the influence of the book but not fall into the category of searching for acknowledgement of influence? Protonk (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I took a stab at improving the first sentence. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with that change. It's not a major point, but I think it's preferable the article says the book was influential (with a cite and supporting points) rather than noting that its influence has been acknowledged. Apterygial ^talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed, and after three FACs the article deserves promotion. Apterygial ^talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I found a few things to fix, but not much; good job. Feel free to revert my edits.

• Although "contemporary" is commonly used by historians to mean "of the time", it's more likely to mean "modern" to most readers. I went with "of the day" and "of the time"; feel free to improvise. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not on board with the present tense in "In 1990, Charles Solomon writes ...", but I understand that some people prefer a certain kind of consistency.
• I'm fine with "bell hooks" lowercase, since her name is generally written that way in the press and in our sources, but Ms. hooks (ms. hooks?) hasn't yet succeeded in overturning the rule that sentences begin with a capital letter. If you'd prefer to lowercase her first name, then rewrite the sentence so that "bell" isn't the first word.
• Support per standard disclaimer. I don't know much about literary criticism, so I can't comment much on the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - are this article's editors aware of this, and do they think it warrants mention in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Marables' book was published *very* recently. And I (at least) haven't bought it yet. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm reading Marable's book. The article cites an essay written by Marable in 2009 and a 2007 interview. I don't expect the new book to include many revelations concerning Malcolm X's autobiography that Marable didn't discuss in the 2009 article, which I can provide if you'd like to see it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - apologies for not reading this sooner. I think it's fairly strong, and quite well written, but I do have some comments:

• Lead - the first sentence is too stuffed and hard to chunk. Consider splitting into two sentences?
• six and a half - prob. should be hyphenated
• The second paragraph of the "Summary" is more a description of genre. Either retitle the section, or split out into a separate "Genre" section
• block quote in "Construction" - use single quotes inside the block quote
• Should "Malcolm X: The Art of Autobiography" be in italics? Is it a book or an essay? Also, the first sentence of "Narrative presentation" is attributed in-text to Widemand but is cited to Wood
• "Two Create One" - title of book or essay in a collection? If a collection the citation should to be fixed to reflect that
• Consider adding topic sentences to begin the paras. For example the "Collaboration" section leads with a title making this sentence hard to follow without context: "In Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X, Dyson criticizes historians and biographers of the time for re-purposing the Autobiography as a transcendent narrative by a "mythological" Malcolm X without being critical enough of the underlying ideas"
• Identify the authors - who are they? scholars, critics, etc?
• "Collaboration" - integrate the block quote and add introduction
• "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; editing, revising and composing the Autobiography was a power struggle between two men with sometimes competing ideas of the final shape for the book." - this could be a topic sentence to begin the section?
• Single quotes in the quote box
• "Haley played an important role in persuading Malcolm X not to re-edit the book as a polemic against Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam at a time when Haley already had most of the material needed to complete the book, and asserted his authorial agency when the Autobiography's "fractured construction" " - this is already explained in the "Construction" section and feels redundant, unless somehow the two are combined
• "Collaberation" is very stuffed - either needs subsections or trimming back. I'm thinking the page almost over-emphasizes the collaboration to some degree. Either Haley's involvement should be trimmed back, or more added about Malcolm X's contributions. For example, how and when were the interviews conducted?
• Why did Doubleday cancel?
• Was it a bestseller in the sense that it consistently made the bestseller lists, or did it sell well?
• Link Newsweek
• Tense problem here: "Newsweek also highlighted the limited insight and criticism in The Autobiography but praises it for power and poignance" - tense shift
  • I've struck this, but it's a bit awkward now. Do you mind if I have go at it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• However, Truman Nelson in The Nation lauds the epilogue as revelatory and "skillful amanuensis"
• Same sentence: should it be "a skillful amanuensis"?
• In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; - rewrite to something like: "In 1968 film produced Marvin Worth asked novelist James Baldwin to write a screenplay based on ...."
• Link to Lee's film
• Can the film adaptation section be combined with the legacy section, or somewhere other than where it is. It doesn't seem to fit in the "Publication, sales" section.
• Overall I think some of the blockquotes can be trimmed down and maybe even moved into quote boxes. I've done this to an extent with The Sun Also Rises and I think if the quote won't fit in a quote box then it's too long. Also, having the blockquote in the text forces the reader to wade through it - but I tend to skip them altogether.

Generally I think with a bit of reorg, this is in pretty good shape. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of making the recommended changes. Wood is the editor of a collection of essays, several of which are cited here. That's why statements attributed to Wideman and Rampersad, for example, are cited to pages in Wood. Would it be better if we cite the essay in the footnote as well? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked to see if you're using citation templates or not. If citation templates, then put the essay title in the chapter parameter and fill in the editor parameters and it will format correctly. At any rate, it needs to be cited to the person who did the writing, not directly to the person who edited the collection. I'll go check your citation methods and report back if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citation for edited volumes is pretty standard outside wikipeda but I have no way of knowing how standard it is within wikipedia. We can cite it within text as "Wideman says" but the footnote is going to point to Wood (or Wideman in Wood). Protonk (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely familiar with the citation style you're using, but it should be formatted similar to this one I've done freehand: Aldridge, John W. "Afterthought on the Twenties and The Sun Also Rises". in Wagner-Martin, Linda (ed.) New Essays on Sun Also Rises. Cambridge University Press (1990). ISBN 0-521-30204-8

Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style isn't one I would have chosen either, but I'll add chapter titles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back later to continue, but I've made many of the changes you recommended. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be making more of your recommended changes later and tomorrow. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I read this book fairly recently, so was interested in the article. Thoughts on the first few sections:

• It begins with an incident during his mother's pregnancy - seems almost deliberately vague. Either describe the incident or just say "it begins during his mother's pregnancy"; don't leave it mysterious.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, the "summary" section could probably be expanded a little. There's also a slightly jarring change of tense in the final sentence where it suddenly changes to say Haley "summarized" whereas previously the book "documents" and "addresses".

Fixed jarring change of tense. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The article describes Haley's description of Malcolm X's final days as an "epilogue", which suggests it is at the back, but certainly in my version of the book this section came first. Is this unusual or is there a slightly better word to describe the section?

The Peguin edition places the epilogue at the front, but the first edition had it at the back, as an epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy - any more info on this? Did the contract really tell him to write something which looked like verbatim copy (which seems odd)?

I'm hoping I can find time to look through the second half of the article soon. It looks good, with perhaps just a little tightening needed. Trebor (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy " the second half of the article should make this clear. Failing that the afterword by haley mentions this specifically. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• It says "purchased the original manuscripts of The Autobiography of Malcolm X for a sum of $100,000". I think it would be more plain English if it replaced 'purchased' with 'bought' and deleted 'a sum of'. Not a big deal, just my minor comment.

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good suggestion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for making the edit. Lightmouse (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk). I should say right at the beginning that I'm not at all knowledgeable in this field, in particular I have not read the book. I'll try to review the whole article in steps. Already now, though, there are many things which are unclear or don't read smoothly, so I'm sceptical. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The lead section suffers from a fundamental problem, namely that it does not summarize the article adequately. I have not yet read the whole article, but a quick glance at the table of contents shows, e.g., that "Legacy" is not at all covered by the lead section. As a simple rule of thumb, I suggest that the lead reflect each section roughly proportionally. So, the lead needs a thorough overhaul anyway, but I'm still giving some more detailed comments:

The "Legacy" section is summarized in the last paragraoh of the lead, i.e, "brilliant, painful, important book", "... one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books. A screenplay adaptation of the Autobiography by James Baldwin and Arnold Perl provided the source material for Spike Lee's 1992 film Malcolm X." — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• you keep repeating dates ("published in 1965", "between 1963 and 1965" but it is unclear from the lead when M.X. died). Might try a more streamlined handling of the various dates. For example, why do you consider "published in 1965" so important that you include it in the first sentence?

Clarified that Malcolm X was killed in 1965.

Why shouldn't the article mention the book's publication date in the first sentence of the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "contemporary scholars" is unclear: what time do you refer to

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "may have regarded" ?? why "may". Did they or did they not. --- After reading the article, this is a bit clearer. Still, the wording is a bit confusing.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "While Malcolm X ..." This sentence is very long and reads a bit clumsy, especially the end.

I think this is fine, and your opinion is not actionable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We read "modern scholarship tends to regard him as an essential collaborator who intentionally subsumed his authorial voice to allow readers to feel as though Malcolm X were speaking directly to them". 6 verbs in one sentence, multiple relative clauses? This clearly is actionable. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Haley's proactive censorship" is vague and unspecific. In what way did he "censor" the manuscript? (For example: did he reinforce the antisemitic material or did he tone it down?)

Censorship implies Haley toned down the antisemitic material versus reinforcing it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the last paragraph you have tons of dates. It is unclear to me why they are important. In comparison to the coverage of other sections in the lead, this is overly detailed.

There are three dates in the paragraph, one as an example of a contemporary review, one to show it's influence 30 years later, and one to inform the reader of Spike Lee's 1992 film, again, as an example of the book's legacy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The "epilogue" footnote looks quite ugly and is also not necessary, I believe. If you consider the footnote important, consider merging it in the lead. Otherwise merge it somewhere in the main text.

The "epilogue" footnote was written to satisfy another FAC reviewer who pointed out that their UK copy (Penguin), places the epilogue at the beginning of the book. Nonetheless, the name of Haley's chapter is, Epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

• You mention a couple of things covered in the book. I keep wondering what is maybe not contained in the book. From Malcolm X I see that he had a family. Is this not covered in the book? More generally, to get a sharper picture I think it is important to contrast the content of the autobiography with other biographies.

Jakob.scholbach, you admit to not having read the book, so why assume the summary is not adequate? — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assume that the summary is not adequate! I'm just wondering "hm, he had a wife and six daugthers" (according to Malcolm X), is this not contained in the autobio? If it is in the autobio, then you might want to add this (unless, say, it is very briefly mentioned in the book)? If it is not in the autobio, you also might want to point out that he didn't cover his family life in the book. After all, that's something one would expect in a typical (auto)biography.

• "74-page epilogue". I feel the 74 pages are overly specific, especially since page numbers change in every edition and I as a reader of the article don't even know how long the book is in total.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I overlooked this earlier, but there is still "These comments became the 74-page epilogue" somewhere else. I'm not saying you should remove this, but being this specific all of a sudden just pops out. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

• This complaint applies to many other spots as well: you put very much in front all these literary scholars. The only neutrally formulated sentence is the first one, which gives us just 4 wikilinks. Not much. Any other sentence deals with the view of a particular person. I guess mostly it is less important who said this and that about the book? If so, consider reworking things as "Literary critic Arnold Rampersad and Malcolm X biographer Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative." into maybe "The narrative of the Autobiography has been described as ..."

We mention Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson by their full name here so that further in the article we can use just Rampersad, and Dyson, and the reader will know that these scholars have been established. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "came too close to the truth" ?? what truth

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be a stupid remark, but I don't understand how the rhetorical power is possibly related to the evolving character? Isn't this the power of the actual content of the book?

Paul John Eakin and Alex Gillespie are quoted and cited here, it's not their, or our fault that you do not understand what they are saying. The rhetorical power of the work is derived in part by the subject's evolving life story, i.e. disillusionment with The Nation and uncertainty in Malcolm's philosophy. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, given that the book was started 2 years before his death, one is wondering how the character can possibly evolve this much. Consider fleshing this out a bit, i.e., what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?

Are you suggesting that a human cannot significantly evolve in 24 months? As far as, "what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?", this is covered in the Summary section. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

• This is also a general comment and problem the article has: as far as I have read now, the possible roles a second person contributing to such a work are never clearly delineated? Basically this amounts to the questions: what is a coauthor, what is a ghostwriter, what is an interviewer? Once this is clear, it will be much easier to write this article (and for the reader, to understand). E.g. you say "Haley coauthored [...], but also performed the basic functions [...] writing and [...] editing the Autobiography". Why "but"?

That is kind of the point of the article, Haley took on many roles and he is variously attributed as the work's coauthor, ghostwriter, and editor. Per "Why 'but'?", this is fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. As I said below, I think the article would benefit if you could come up with a "definition" of the notions of "coauthor", "ghostwriter" and then explain why certain scholars regard H this or that way. Is this possible/reasonable? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "which angered the activist" -- Haley or the Nation of Islam?

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Haley eventually shifted the focus" -- it is unclear what happened after this shift. Did he just keep interviewing M about his mother then?

Haley shifted the focus away from The Nation, and toward X's life story, which began with questions about his mother, but certainly the reader knows the work is not entirely about X's mother. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was just puzzled by the jump 1st) this long quote makes it a point that MX had lots of things to say about his mother, then 2nd) the next paragraph talks about Haley's role. If the two paragraphs need to be together, I just want to suggest rounding off the quote by a sentence such that the transition to the next paragraph is less sharp. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The next paragraph is awkward: first you say H. is "nominally" a ghostwriter (what does this actually mean, nominally?). Then you suggest that it was "black scholars" who defended this point. First, who were these black scholars? Given that you name any other scholar around, you should do so here, too. More importantly, there seems to be a contradiction on this "nominally" and the vague attribution to the black scholars.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "took pains" -- unencyclopedic language

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Haley's contribution is "unique" -- what do you mean by that? Unique sounds weaselly.

Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the contract you talk about in the last paragraph the one mentioned earlier? If so, I suggest reshaping this discussion by making this a more clearly delineated paragraph. Maybe even a section "The contract"?
• In the "Summary" section you say that the epilogue summarizes the last days, now you say that it contained Haley's view on M, as well as a description of the agreement. I'm sure it's all in there, but then you should overhaul what is written in the summary section.

Narrative presentation

• "in order to allow readers to insert themselves into the broader socio-psychological narrative, neither coauthor's voice is as strong as it could have been" strikes me as quite vague. Come on, what should we read into "the broader socio-psychological narrative"? Also, what do you mean bei "neither coauthor's"?
• Is the quote "You are serving many masters..." explicitly referring to MX's autobiography? From reading the quote, it looks like a general description of the traps etc. in writing a biography. If this impression is right, I suggest removing this quote since it is then off-topic, or at least too long. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Wideman argues that Haley wrote [...], but he hchose to write the epilogue ..." What is meant by "but he chose": is this now a fact or is this still something that Wideman is suggesting. Also, why "but"?
• "requiring more than the writer's prose alone" -- unclear to me. What writer are you referring to, here? The subject of an autobio or the ghostwriter?
• "Though a writer's skill ..." -- same comment as with the other quote above.

Collaboration

• Most of this section does not seem to be connected to the collbaroation. The first sentence does talk about it, but already the second does not. Also the lines starting with "To Rampersad, ... " is totally unrelated to the collaboration, it seems. If I'm not mistaken, this requires a serious overhaul of this whole section, possibly splitting into two (e.g., Collaboration and Myth-making or the like).
• "Rampersad suggests that since his 1965 assassination, Malcolm X has "become the desires of his admirers, who have reshaped memory, historical record and the autobiography according to their wishes, which is to say, according to their needs as they perceive them."" -- this is not even related to the autobiography. I suggest to try to delineate more clearly what belongs in this article and what does not.
• The quote of Joe Wood: same problem: slightly off-topic.
• "much of the available" -- I think this shoud be "many"
• "the fiction of the completed self" -- What do you mean by completed self?
• "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; ..." is a verbatim copy of the first sentence of section 3.2.
• The quote "'You can't bless Allah!' he exclaimed, changing 'bless' to 'praise.' " is nice, but without context difficult to appreciate. Expound it a bit more?
• Image caption "A young Haley" -- weird wording. Why don't give the (rough) date when the picture was taken. Also, was Haley this young when he wrote the book? No better picture around?
• Generally speaking, this section is very long. Most, including me, would say too long. More focus on the topic and, more importantly, grouping the material in a more efficient way (see above comments) would be beneficial.
• "Andrews suggests that Haley's role expanded ..." -- this is just a repetition in your words of the quote. Maybe trim this down a bit?
• The picture of MX and Martin Luther King is off-topic. The image caption seems to be particularly irrelevant. This article is about the book.
• "confounding factors of the publisher" -- this is the first mention of the publisher. Consider telling its name and expound briefly (a big publishing house, notable prior publications...?)

Publication

• "climbed 300%" -- 300% of what?
• In the editions list, maybe remove the authors, since it is always MX and Haley? Also consider moving this list to the references section. Such a list is somehow very sober all of a sudden.
• "Missing chapters" -- this interesting bit comes surprisingly late and it is also not quite clear why you make this a subsection of "Publication".

Legacy

• The delineation of this and section 4 is unclear. E.g. the quote of Franklin could just as well be in section 4. Where exactly do you draw the line?
• "Bell hooks" ??
• "She is not alone" -- who is she?
• Why are screenplay adaptations part of legacy? I consider this more closely related to the list of editions and the publication aftermath.

External links all need accessdates.

Oppose It should be said, WP can be happy to have this article, and I'd like to thank those who contributed to it! By and large, the article is well-written in terms of prose (except for a number of vague hand-waving expressions). Also, to an outsider it looks well-researched. I cannot judge whether it is balanced and presents the facts unbiasedly, so I'm not commenting on this. My main and most important concern with the article is that it does not succeed to convey a clear picture of this topic, at least as far as I can tell. While I understand that there are some subtleties in such a topic, most of this could be plain and easy. Most of all, I think this is because the article is not structured clearly enough. For example, we have details about the collaboration all over the place: the contract is being talked about in various places, elsewhere some facts about Haley's contribution are given, again in another section we find material on H's conversation with the publisher concerning this topic. Gauging Haley's contribution is intermingled with discussions about MX's (and his followers') building of his "myth". In some places, the article seems self-contradictory (or at least not coherently written, for example the content of the epilogue). To be comprehensive, it seems necessary to present more background: what other biographies have been written about MX, what other (comparable) co-authored autobio's have been written. How do literary scholars define/delineate the role of a ghostwriter, a coauthor, an interviewer, an amanuensis? Applying these criteria, what role did Haley take (according to the scholars, still)? Also, the article is too short on Haley's life and other work (independently of AMX). After all he is an important contributor to the thing. Also, surprisingly few quotes of the actual Autobiography are given. These could and should be used to explain the prose style of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach (talk • contribs) 16:58, April 30, 2011

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.