Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harlem Renaissance/archive1
An absorbing article on a pivotal period in African-American intellectual and artistic life. I have not significantly edited this article.--Pharos 20:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for nominating the article. I've put a lot of work into it and it's one of which I am most proud working on. —ExplorerCDT 20:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While it's a fine article, I have a couple objections yet for featured status: 1) The lead image has no caption, so I don't know how it relates to the theme of the article (yes, it mentions Harlem, and it looks like an Art Deco style of the 1920s, but how does it fit in here?); 2) as an avid jazz listener, I've always associated the phrase Harlem Renaissance with jazz, and I'd like to see this discussed further; 3) There is no References section; 4) I'm not sure that the list of artists can really be comprehensive and still concise (for example, Cab Calloway wasn't listed until I added it just now); 5) There really should be more about the movement's influence on "white" artists (for example, Fletcher Henderson was an arranger for the Benny Goodman orchestra (Goodman himself was criticized for hiring black musicians for his bands), and the Savoy Ballroom was fully integrated from very early on). slambo 21:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- 1 - It's primitivist, not art deco. 2- Agreed, though jazz was more than a New York phenomenon. 3) Coming soon. 4 - It's rather comprehensive. Just because I missed Cab Calloway doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. Poor Min, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Ho. 5- White artists were largely accused of exploiting and mimicking black movements, even to the point of some black theorists accusing whites of perverse voyeurism. I doubt even I can find an NPOV way to write that up. White audiences should be covered, just never got around to it and the source material sucks regarding white audienceship in Harlem.—ExplorerCDT 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Okay, I'm not all that well versed in art styles, my bad. But it still should have a caption telling how the image relates to the article. 2) Indeed, Chicago, Kansas City and New Orleans (among many others) all feature prominently in the history of jazz, and discussing them is beyond the scope of this article; it's just that the music is the first thing that I think of when I hear the phrase. 4) Okay, we probably have different interpretations of "comprehensive". You've got a representative list of the most prominent artists and for the scope of this article, it's probably enough. I was thinking here that if the list grows much more, it should probably be split out into its own page (like List of artists in the Harlem Renaissance or something). slambo 02:31, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- 1 - It's primitivist, not art deco. 2- Agreed, though jazz was more than a New York phenomenon. 3) Coming soon. 4 - It's rather comprehensive. Just because I missed Cab Calloway doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. Poor Min, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Hi-dee, Ho. 5- White artists were largely accused of exploiting and mimicking black movements, even to the point of some black theorists accusing whites of perverse voyeurism. I doubt even I can find an NPOV way to write that up. White audiences should be covered, just never got around to it and the source material sucks regarding white audienceship in Harlem.—ExplorerCDT 04:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Agree with Slambo mostly. 1) Add references - this is a basic requirement of a featured article. 2) Move the quotations to WikiQuote. 3) Move the list of "notable figure" to a separate (list) article. Jeronimo 08:47, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- 1 - Coming soon. 2 - No. 3 - No. —ExplorerCDT 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? slambo 02:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- In re: 2&3 Because several other page covering cultural periods have lists and a palette of quotes within the article. I hate the notion that articles should be split up just because someone doesn't like a list inside an article. Here, both the quotes and list of notable figures are appropriate. —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Ok. I almost mentioned the quotes myself, but then thought that the ratio of prose to lists was acceptable, and the lists seemed appropriate to me. slambo 02:13, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding 2 & 3. A section listing quotes is never complete or comprehensive, and the selection of quotes may also be POV. A featured article should be comprehensive and NPOV. A similar reasoning goes for the list. I'm not against lists, but they suggest completeness (which isn't true) and they do not always give sufficient information. For example, in this case we cannot see which of the works had most influence, or if poetry was more important in the Harlem Renaissance than music. So why not move this list elsewhere (where it can be expanded with to include artists) and replace it with a prose section here describing the same topic (alternatively, put that content in the article itself. I consider both serious problems with the article, and will keep objecting. 82.161.112.78 08:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- In re: 2&3 Because several other page covering cultural periods have lists and a palette of quotes within the article. I hate the notion that articles should be split up just because someone doesn't like a list inside an article. Here, both the quotes and list of notable figures are appropriate. —ExplorerCDT 04:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why not? slambo 02:37, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
- 1 - Coming soon. 2 - No. 3 - No. —ExplorerCDT 22:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- object I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive. The article talks about black soldiers in Europe in WWI, but doesn’t mention any names, (there was a bandleader whose last name was “Europe,” I can’t remember the full name, but he’s the kind of person who should be mentioned). Another omission is A’Lelia Walker, a major black patron of the arts. Nor are any white patrons of the Harlem Renaissance mentioned. It sounds a little corny to say “an explosion of culture.” Some words, like “labor” and “literature” are unnecessarily wikilinked, while other terms, like the Back to Africa Movement, are incorrectly wikilinked. I think perhaps with a few improvements this article could be at FA status.Dinopup 01:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That would be James Reese Europe. slambo 02:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I either removed A'Lelia Walker in the days when this article was just a list of people involved with the Harlem Renaissance (some so remote they didn't belong) or had considered to add her and chose to leave her out, whichever it was I don't remember, it was 4 months ago. Patrons may have put up the money, but that's it. Other than that, there's little they accomplished in furtherance of the artistic and cultural goals of the era. We don't list all the patrons who supported Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Ludwig van Beethoven or Jackson Pollack. Black soldiers in WWI...I listed the Harlem Hellfighters. Instead of criticising, why not add the name of James Reese Europe instead of bitching why it isn't there from the sidelines. Or did you not realize Europe was dead before the Renaissance even started? I've never seen you, Dinopup, even come close to contributing. The Back to Africa movement link was correct at the time I wrote the article. If things move, it's up to the people that move them to correct links. Other than that, how else is it not "well-written"? Considering my work has been published both in book form and by reputable journals, I take a smack like that seriously. —ExplorerCDT 05:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest that the article was anything other than very good, I just didn't think it was at the Featured Article level. If someone like me, whose knowledge of the Harlem Renaissance is, at best, casual, can think of arguably significant things which are unmentioned, the article isn't comprehensive. I would think that articles on Beethoven, Pollack, and Mozart would likewise be less than comprehensive without discussion of patrons.Dinopup 02:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I guess that you having said "I don’t think this article is that well written or comprehensive" means that you thought it was very good? Nice try, bucko. —ExplorerCDT 04:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't suggest that the article was anything other than very good, I just didn't think it was at the Featured Article level. If someone like me, whose knowledge of the Harlem Renaissance is, at best, casual, can think of arguably significant things which are unmentioned, the article isn't comprehensive. I would think that articles on Beethoven, Pollack, and Mozart would likewise be less than comprehensive without discussion of patrons.Dinopup 02:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object. No references. As a courtesy to editors that spend their time here, please do not nominate articles that do not meet the basic featured article criteria. And don't take comments here so personally. Your article has been nominated and by the rules of this process anyone can comment on whether it meets the criteria for FA's or not. Many very high quality articles come through here, and thus comments for those that don't meet the criteria are generally fairly curt and even blunt. That in no way means you didn't do good work on the article, but it also doesn't mean the comments are wrong. Commentors are not necesarily qualified to do a lot of work on the nominated article, but they often know a lot about whether it meets the FA criteria. You would be better to focus on improving the article and making sure it meets the criteria than attacking the people that comment on the article. I for one consider that an article written without reliable references at hand is much more suspect for having factual errors and missing information. But keep up the good work, and get ahold of the most reliable references on the topic and cite your sources. - Taxman 17:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)