Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Misty Copeland/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2016 [1].

Misty Copeland

edit
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the prominent ballerina, Misty Copeland. She has risen to prominence from humble beginnings, despite great racial, social, family and financial stresses. Her story needs to be told and this article does that. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed a worthy subject, and I hope to read it soon and add further comments. In the meantime, please note that Ref. 48 is unformatted. I also question whether, in the lead paragraph summarising Copeland's achievements, it is appropriate to begin with a list of her commercial sponsors. That, surely, is not her greatest claim to fame. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two things. First, I kept wondering, when I read this, isn't Copeland the first black principal ballerina in the history of any of the big three US ballet companies (not just ABT)? If so, we should say so. Has any major European ballet company had a black principal ballerina? If not, that would seem relevant too. Second, does the article purport to describe all of Copeland's solo roles? If not, we should consider whether it names all of her most important roles. In any case, the article seems to peter out with respect to her roles after her recovery in mid-2013. It does not name any of her 2013 roles, and it names only one of her 2015 roles. It does not name any roles that she has danced since becoming principal. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with TTT here. Lauren Anderson was principal ballerina at Houston 25 years ago, and describing Copeland as "first at a major company" is an invitation to endless arguments about whether Houston Ballet (the fourth-largest in the US) is "major" enough. ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous sources like this one identify the big three US ballet companies as ABT, NYCB and San Francisco, and we already say so in Copeland's article. I wonder if Copeland says so in her memoir, or if a more general book about the history of ballet might make the point. I know there have been a couple of male principal dancers, but I don't think there has ever been a principal ballerina in either NYCB or San Francisco. The fact that Lauren Anderson (first black principal ballerina at Houston Ballet) is mentioned in articles about Copeland's promotion (and they do not mention any other previous black prima ballerinas) makes me think it is even more likely that neither of those two has ever has a black prima ballerina, and if that is the case, why not say so? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at this and add something over the next three days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Ssilvers and Iridescent can you let me know if I am adding the right amount of detail. It seems a bit much to me.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Defer to Ssilvers (and anyone from WikiProject Ballet who shows up) on the appropriate level of detail; I'm more used to painting & architecture articles, where the levels of what's considered appropriate detail are likely different since it's more important to illustrate changes in style over time. As an aside, I'd strongly suggest posting a request at WikiProject Ballet for people to take a look; I don't think it could reasonably be called inappropriate canvassing, given that those editors are the people least likely to support, as they're best placed to spot potential problems. ‑ Iridescent 20:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you're going too far overboard. I think it's better to write something and let others trim it than to miss something important. I agree with Iridescent that you need to get more editors to review this, and a notice at the Ballet project (and also at the Dance project?) might attract some good reviewers. And anywhere else you can think of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers Why did "Stylistically, she is considered a classical ballet dancer." get removed from the article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't add anything. She is a ballerina at a ballet company. Obviously, it's ballet, not modern dance, ballroom or any other style. It's like saying that "Stylistically, Placido Domingo was considered a classical opera singer." Note that the article classical ballet is a nearly unreferenced article that should be merged into Ballet. It just means older ballets in the standard rep. Even if one wants to break ballet down, Copeland and ABT perform contemporary ballet and neoclassical ballet as well as older ballets, so the statement is actually false, or a joke, like in Victor/Victoria when Julie Andrews pretentiously says: "Monsieur, I have a *lejitimate* voice!" In any case, the statement misinterpreted what the source meant. The NYT reviewer was basically admiring Copeland's "classical" approach, even though she is also good at modern ballet. But, again, that's sort of a pretentious and condescending thing to say, because you could basically say it about all good ballerinas. Like, even though she danced on Prince's piano, don't worry!, she's a real ballet dancer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, Can you make sense of this article's commentary on her classical abilities?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, except that it shows that different reviewers can disagree. This reminds me that the article really needs a well-balanced "reputation section", where the really substantial discussions about Copeland's actual dancing (considering her body of work, as this article does) by legitimate ballet reviewers -- like Robert Gottlieb -- are consolidated. Copeland has implied in numerous interviews that what he (and others) has said is racist; he writes: "was race a determining factor in her ascension?" -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballet expert needed I am trying to beef up her career history as requested above. It is not clear to me whether in 2013 she played both Queen of the Dryads and Mercedes or just the former. In 2014, it is clear that she performed both. Help would be great on clarifying this point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Moving comment from Talk:Misty Copeland) In the lead section (although not necessarily the body), I'd suggest "Copeland became the first Black woman" rather than "Copeland became the first African American woman". Professional dancers tend to move between countries quite a lot, and in this context "first African American" could give the impression—partcularly to non-US readers to whom the term "African American" isn't as familiar—that there had been other black women to hold the position and she was just the first to be a US citizen. ‑ Iridescent 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this, and I conclude that readers in other countries would *not* be confused by her description as an African American woman. We even bluelink the term just in case there is any question at all. The term black people seems to be, if anything, more ambiguous. That article says: "the meaning of the expression varies widely both between and within societies". Similar Featured Articles?: Barack Obama's LEAD section calls him the first African American to hold the office of President, and Maya Angelou's article calls her the first African American woman to direct a film, but both also use the term "black". Most prestigious black-edited news and entertainment outlets seem to use both terms interchangeably. The Grio calls Copeland African-American here, but it calls her "black" here. Note the lower case "b". Black Enterprise magazine seems to use the terms interchangeably for Copeland. Ebony (magazine) does the same but uses an upper-case "B". My guess is that it does not matter, and that we, too, can use the term interchangeably in the article for variety's sake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't believe that this article is at GA level yet. It will be soon, once we create a well-structured "Reputation" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
GA or FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are "leading" roles, according to Copeland's ABT bio. "...and roles in Airs, Amazed in Burning Dreams, Baker’s Dozen, Ballo della Regina, Birthday Offering, Black Tuesday, The Brahms-Haydn Variations, Brief Fling, Company B, Désir, Gong, Hereafter, In the Upper Room, Overgrown Path, Pretty Good Year, Private Light, Raymonda Divertissements, Sechs Tänze, Sinatra Suite.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The were leading roles according to the source. Unless you have a contrary source, we should restore this description of this content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing the wrong source -- this page incorrectly summarizes Copeland's actual bio at ABT (which I mentioned and QUOTED for you above): http://www.abt.org/dancers/detail.asp?Dancer_ID=56 It clearly identifies and distinguishes the "roles", from the "leading roles". Please look more carefully at her actual ABT bio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The statement was WP:OR; several facts within it are not adequately referenced. One might be able to prove that they were "in the same cast". Moreover, whether or not she had an "opportunity" to dance "alongside" one of her inspirations while still in the corps, is not of encyclopedic interest. It could hardly have been otherwise, since Herrera was a principal dancer with the company, so everyone in the corps had that "opportunity". Note that we previously state the encyclopedic information: that Herrera was one of her idols at an early age. If you could find a ref that says that she chose ABT over San Francisco because of her affection for Herrera, that might be of interest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly was not WP:OR as it had two WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OR and RS are separate rules. If you read WP:OR carefully, you will see that the sources must actually support the facts relied on. As I stated above the sentence contains facts that are NOT supported by the sources. They only support the REDUNDANT idea that Copeland had idolized Herrera in 1999 (we already say that above in Copeland's article) and that she was on the same stage as Herrera while in the corps, which is totally unremarkable, since every corps dancer at ABT shared the stage with Herrera. It's an unhelpful sentence. As I said, if you want to write more about Herrera (but she is already mentioned enough in this article!), it might be of some interest to note (if it is true) that Copeland joined ABT instead of San Francisco (after dancing in both their summer programs) because Herrera was at ABT. But I have not seen anything that says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once you mention Anderson, the mention of additional non-bluelinked ballerinas from lesser companies is tangential information, and we didn't even assert that Jimenez is black. Jimenez is of no more significance than any number of dancers from Joffrey Ballet and other such companies. I think the paragraph is much clearer now, and I was able to fill in a major gap in the article with the addition of the AP article and the bold statement from the documentary. It would be nice to also show that there have been no black ballerinas at San Francisco Ballet, but I have not done the research for that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What source do you have that Boston Ballet is lesser than Houston Ballet? Both were sourced from the same article regarding other African American principals.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson, who is blue-linked, is mentioned in numerous news articles about Copeland's promotion. Jimenez, who is not blue-linked, is mentioned in only a few news articles. Even if Boston is comparable to Houston, it is neither helpful nor necessary to mention Jimenez or other examples of earlier black ballerinas like Virginia Johnson, Raven Wilkinson, Delores Brown, Carmen de Lavallade, Janet Collins, Debra Austin, Robyn Gardenhire, Andrea Long, Sandra Fortune-Green, Nora Kimball, Anne Benna Sims, Aesha Ash, Kayla Rowser, Céline Gittens or Michaela DePrince. Here is a good survey of black ballet pioneers. Currently, this article is not well-written, and adding redundant examples is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copeland's memoir. TTT, do you have a copy of Copeland's memoir? I think that it is essential for anyone nominating this article for FA to have it and to read it carefully. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a copy from the Chicago Public Library when I originally added the content. I don't have a copy now, but could probably get a hold of one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, you will need to go through it again to check all the cites to the book in this article and to make sure, now that you have read more about her, that we note (1) if she says anything that casts doubt on other sources, or (2) if there is anything significant about her life that we are missing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a hidden comment in the article with the list of roles still to add. I'd have finished adding them by now, but you came to my talk page to yell at me about ref formatting, so I assume that you don't want me to work on it anymore. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from z1720

edit

Hi everyone, especially TTT. I read that you needed a ballet expert. Although my area of expertise is Canadian modern/contemporary dance, I think I can help with some of the ballet technical terms. This is my first FAC review, so I am sorry for not fixing things myself. Feel free to disagree with my comments and please PING me if you have any questions/need clarification.

  • "When she was seven, Copeland saw the film Nadia on television, and suddenly Nadia Comăneci was her new role model." I would take out the word suddenly, or perhaps change it to "When she was seven, Copeland saw the biopic Nadia on television and its subject Nadia Comăneci became her new role model."
    Thanks for smoothing this out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At age eleven, she found her first creative outlet at a Boys & Girls Club wood shop class." Delete as it sounds like random trivia.
    I agree and have deleted the sentence, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After three months of study, Copeland was en pointe" I'm confused by the timeline. Did Copeland's mother divorce Robert, live with various boyfriends, and move to Gardena in three months? If not, I think this sentence should go at the end of the previous paragraph.
    I also find the chronology of this paragraph *and* the ones preceding and following it confusing. Can you clarify the timeline in this whole section, TTT? When did Misty begin Drill Team? How long afterwards did she take her first dance lesson; then, what is the chronology up through the Spotlight Award? As I mentioned before, I think that you will need to revisit Copeland's memoir to clarify all this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted below, I have her biography on order from the Chicago Public Library...A copy is "in transit" to my local branch in the interlibrary loan system.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think that we have clarified it a little in the meantime. I think the whole confusion starts with when, exactly, did she meet and start working with Bradley. I bet she was really 12, not 13, when she had her first ballet lesson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ssilvers, I don't think it was until the 1995-96 school year and more likely than not that she was 13. She possibly started a few days before she was 13, but I doubt it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, The chronology is a bit muddled by the book. The book seems to state that she made the drill team and became its captain as a 6th grader. Sometime after Christmas of that year seems to be when she took her first ballet class according to the book. However, some sources affirm that her first ballet class was in 1995. However, in the Spring of 1995 she was only 12 and many sources affirm that she was 13 when she began taking ballet. Maybe what is meant is that she attended ballet at the Boys and Girls club in the Spring of 1995 and began attending a formal ballet school at age 13.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one possibility is that she took her first class after the 1995-96 winter break. It is possible that Copeland may have been a year behind in school and the September that she turned 13 was the beginning of her 6th grade year.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it only makes sense if you were right the first time -- it must have been early 1995; then, all the timing falls into place sensibly (in fact, she graduated on schedule in 2000, so she must have finished 6th grade in June 1994). I removed the (I think) erroneous mention of 1995-1996 winter break and made some minor changes concerning the timing surrounding the first lessons. Please check the changes in the article and see if you agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By all accounts she was 13 when she started ballet and by the book she started after winter break of a school year. It had to have been 1996. Also the Dance Magazine source says she started nearly 3 years ago in a December 1998 article. However, I believe she was in 8th grade. The book glosses over this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only way it makes sense is if she met Bradley in early 1995 and began formal lessons around her 13th birthday in September 1995. Less than 3 years later was the August 1998 custody battle. If she didn't meet Bradley at the Club until 1996, and didn't start lessons with her at the ballet school until some months later, then she only studied with Bradley for less than 2 years, and the chronology doesn't make any sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, you asked me to pick up the book. The book says she started classes after winter break. Thus, I am guessing January 1996. Within a few months sh was probably going to the San Pedro Dance Center. Also, as I stated we have the Dance Magazine source saying she started less than 3 years before December 1998. You also point out that she started less than three years before August 1998. This means it had to be about January 1996. Early 1995 does not work with the 13 years old accounts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing is not good enough for an FA, and I am not persuaded at all by what you have said. I've removed the date for now, as it is clearly OR. This article does not give a clear enough chronology of these years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the next paragraph, we say "first year of middle school". Do we mean 6th grade or 7th grade? In different places middle school starts in either grade 6 or 7. I think she means 7th grade, but can you tell from the book? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)0[reply]

The book is clear that it is 6th grade.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comments are confusing. I suggested deleting things if they didn't speak directly to her life/career, keeping in mind WP:FA? criteria #4 (that an article should not go into unnecessary detail.) I can understand if those facts should be kept in the article.Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they stated that they would not seek to enforce their rights to twenty percent of Copeland's earnings until she became eighteen." A reader might think you are saying that the Bradleys won't collect their 20% until Copeland turns 18. I would take out "until she became eighteen" for clarification.
    I have rephrased to eliminate the ambiguity regarding the "until she became eighteen" phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At age 19, her puberty had been delayed, a situation common in ballet dancers." Wikify "had been delayed" with delayed puberty?
    I don't think we should do it, but only because the delayed puberty article is so horribly bad that it would only confuse readers who clicked on it. I think the text in Copeland's article makes the meaning pretty clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    We should always link to a dedicated link. The quality of the article should not be a determining factor. Articles improve over time and we should be linked to the proper subject as long as the topic should be well-explained if this article reaches a good quality level.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and William Forsythe's workwithinwork" Workwithinwork shouldn't be wikified as it leads to the William Forsythe page, and doesn't provide any info on this piece
    Agreed. I de-wikified it. Shold Workwithinwork begin with an uppercase W or not? -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the beginning, you say, "Copeland did not see her father between the ages of two and twenty-two" but later you say, "Also in 2004, she met her biological father for the first time" If she saw her father before she was 2, she can't meet him for the first time in 2004.
    Good point. I added "in 20 years" to the end of the sentence. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now. I'll take another look tomorrow. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will respond to these over the next 72 hours, starting today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
z1720, How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry, Tony, I know this nom is still active but with no clear support for promotion after five weeks or so it's feeling more like a PR than a FAC (even though it's had a recent PR). I'd like to archive now and ask you to work on further improvements away from FAC, and then renominate. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Misty_Copeland/archive1&oldid=707448706"