![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Adamk, nice article. A couple of things:
It is worth mentioning that those people Vargas Llosa interviewed in the Dominican republic as well as many historians denounced the book as a total work of fiction, not the ´historical´novel he promised them it would be. Although inspired in real characters, they are but a pale specter of the historical facts and personalities. Currently, Vargas Llosa´s popularity has been low (as per book sales) in the Dominican Republic, as the general sentiment in the press and the media, is that he presented a distorted story based on the goodwill of many old timers who overcame many traumas to talk about their experiences during the dictatorship of Trujillo.
Just a excerpt from The Picture of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde:
This article needs some kind of structure, with subheadings etc., that can be filled out as we come up with documented information about the book. You could look at the Novels project guidelines, though note that other feature articles on books and novels don't necessarily follow the structure given:: there's a list of them here and here. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To assist WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem in its drive to bring this article to Featured status, a number of experienced editors from the FA-Team have volunteered their editing services to the project. To see which editors are watching this article, click here.
You can contact a specific editor directly by leaving a message on their talk page, or more generally by posting a message here. To do this, click the '+' tab at the top of the page and enter a subject title, and your message, in the editing windows that will appear. Don't forget to finish off by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically add your signature; you need to be logged in for this to work properly.
We're all really enthusiastic about this project, and looking forward to working with you. All the best, The FA-Team 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, first you guys should read a post that I left a few minutes ago for your classmates at: Augusto Roa Bastos, with an explanation of the rating system. Now concerning this article, it also needs expanding. The Characters and especially the Major themes sections need to be expanded. The article definitely needs more sources to go along with the expanding and after that’s done the Lead section needs to be lengthened, Ideally it should be a short summary of the rest of the article. You guys add a few more paragraphs to this article and I'll be happy to up rate it :) Acer ( talk) 11:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey under MAJOR THEMES i think there is a mistake but its cited so i dont want to change it without checking with whoever put it in. it says "throughout this book, llosa paints a picture of peruvian society that is both tender and severe."... however, the book doesnt take place in Peru, its in the Dominican. (I think the mistake is because he is Peruvian himself.) Please fix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybeddow ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good to see that this article is up and running now. We need the full Andrew B. Wolf reference. And more generally, we still need a bunch more reliable sources. Though I recognize that there will be fewer for this novel than for others, and that you'll be relying relatively heavily on reviews: it's only been out a few years. But no problem: it can just be a shorter article! Still, there will be journal articles out there, too, for instance. And references for the historical background -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sunnybeddow (
talk)
20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)hey prof
i updated the andrew wolf reference. i have a few more references similar that im working on, but they are dissertations (and thus like 300 pages each) and there is very little info on this book at all.
i have no idea what happened to our notes section, we just noticed it. no idea how to fix it.
sunny
The following references were on the article page, but not doing anything. I'm putting them here in case they can become useful. You'd have thought some of them would.
-- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And the following are poor sources, which should be replaced:
In any case, the second one is down at the moment. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Lead is exanded, this article probably will be advanced enough to be considered for a GA nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Gareth was mentioning that you guys are having problems finding scholarly sources on this book. Obviously, as it's relatively recent, there is less available. In some ways that's a good thing, of course! This can be a somewhat shorter article and still refer to most or even almost all of the existent sources. You should mine those doctoral dissertations, which will also have bibliographies: what's useful there (unlike regular books) is that you can download them and search for key words.
Here are a couple of other sources, from the MLA Bibliography:
as well as perhaps:
But again, you're doing well already. I think you're close to a GA nomination. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you nominate this for GA. You'll get a review, by the weekend at the latest I hope, which will give you a more detailed list of issues to work on. I don't know if it will pass, but it's close enough to nominate. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Though comprehensive and employing a high quality of references, much of this article needs to be rewritten and appropriately cited to meet encyclopaedia standards.
Many thanks for this, which is most useful. I'd just say one thing about "tone." You say "'Trujillo is unable to control his bladder and his penis' is not appropriate encyclopedia tone; stick to the facts, leave the lurid descriptions to the reviewers." I'm not entirely sure what is lurid about this; it's certainly far less lurid than the book itself! This is also an important element of the book. I wonder if you could suggest some other wording? -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just one other little detail, too. You say "The Imdb is not a reliable source and must be removed." I've looked into this, and it seems there's consensus that the IMDB is indeed reliable for some details, if not for others. I.e. for instance, for titles, dates, cast etc. (because those things are reviewed by IMDB editors) if not for critical opinions (because they are user generated). It's the former that are at issue for this article. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Afterthought: In the absence of an article for the film, its Imdb listing should be included as an external link in this article. Skomorokh 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok Team: I've made some changes to the plot, characters, and themes sections that I hope will satisfy some of our reviewer's suggestions. Some of the aspects I am less capable of fixing are as follows: the linking issue, the fair use of image issue, the use of IMDB and the reception of the film, and the issue of "creative quotation". Most of this is over my head and I'd love it if someone could help us out here, this is our last day after all. If there's more you'd like me to change or re-write, don't hesitate to say so. Thanks everyone.
Garethshort (
talk)
12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In light of the commitment shown by editors of this article and the significant progress made since the original GA review, I am extending the GA Pass deadline until Monday 14 April. Aside from the issues unaddressed from the original review, two quick things that need improving include:
On the whole, excellent work so far – the revamping of the characters section and the use of Harvard referencing are two particularly marked improvements. Skomorokh 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and done a general copyedit, and I hope I didn't change the intended meaning of anything you wrote. I had a few additional comments:
I'll come back and take a look at the reviewer's other comments later tonight, or more likely tomorrow, and see what can be done about them. Mike Christie (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Made some of those changes you suggested, hopefully cleared it up. I used your suggested sentence, it fits perfectly, if you ask me. Anything else need work?
Garethshort (
talk)
06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Garethshort ( talk) 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done a quick scan and can't see much wrong. One thing I did notice is that there are no citations for the last paragraph of the critical reception. I don't think the material in the paragraph is controversial, so it may be fine without a citation, but it seems like these could be cited fairly easily. If not, I would suggest cutting the paragraph -- it's not important enough to need to keep it for GA, and it could be put back in at some future date for FA.
I'll do another read through now and see what else I can spot. Mike Christie (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found two more things:
Fix these three points and I think we can ping Skomorokh and ask for him to reassess. Mike Christie (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got them all fixed, did some digging for the correct citations. Garethshort ( talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Great work here - it's the first time I've visited this for a while, and it's come on such a long way! I've also made a quick copyedit pass (up to Characters, I'll try to complete later). I've mainly tightened up the prose (basically, if a word can be cut without affecting the meaning, then cut it!). I've also added a couple of citation needed tags for statements that really should be cited; I don't usually do this as it can come over as a bit tactless, but I hope you don't mind :P EyeSerene talk 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to all involved for your efforts on this article over the past fortnight, I have passed this article. It is of sufficiently broad in coverage, reasonably well-written, and adequately (though not perfectly) verified. I think it has enough in terms of content and breadth to be a strong candidate for featured status, but still does not read perfectly in the WP house style for my perhaps over-sensitive ears. Stricutres of no original research and attribution are more difficult to honour for literary topics where so much of the article consists in interpretation, but this is a surmountable difficulty. I recommend submitting to peer review, and wish you all the best of luck. Regards, Skomorokh 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Article is mostly there, though there are a few minor issues that remain and should be fixed.
Other than that, the article is very good. Cheers! Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Adamk, nice article. A couple of things:
It is worth mentioning that those people Vargas Llosa interviewed in the Dominican republic as well as many historians denounced the book as a total work of fiction, not the ´historical´novel he promised them it would be. Although inspired in real characters, they are but a pale specter of the historical facts and personalities. Currently, Vargas Llosa´s popularity has been low (as per book sales) in the Dominican Republic, as the general sentiment in the press and the media, is that he presented a distorted story based on the goodwill of many old timers who overcame many traumas to talk about their experiences during the dictatorship of Trujillo.
Just a excerpt from The Picture of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde:
This article needs some kind of structure, with subheadings etc., that can be filled out as we come up with documented information about the book. You could look at the Novels project guidelines, though note that other feature articles on books and novels don't necessarily follow the structure given:: there's a list of them here and here. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
To assist WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem in its drive to bring this article to Featured status, a number of experienced editors from the FA-Team have volunteered their editing services to the project. To see which editors are watching this article, click here.
You can contact a specific editor directly by leaving a message on their talk page, or more generally by posting a message here. To do this, click the '+' tab at the top of the page and enter a subject title, and your message, in the editing windows that will appear. Don't forget to finish off by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically add your signature; you need to be logged in for this to work properly.
We're all really enthusiastic about this project, and looking forward to working with you. All the best, The FA-Team 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, first you guys should read a post that I left a few minutes ago for your classmates at: Augusto Roa Bastos, with an explanation of the rating system. Now concerning this article, it also needs expanding. The Characters and especially the Major themes sections need to be expanded. The article definitely needs more sources to go along with the expanding and after that’s done the Lead section needs to be lengthened, Ideally it should be a short summary of the rest of the article. You guys add a few more paragraphs to this article and I'll be happy to up rate it :) Acer ( talk) 11:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey under MAJOR THEMES i think there is a mistake but its cited so i dont want to change it without checking with whoever put it in. it says "throughout this book, llosa paints a picture of peruvian society that is both tender and severe."... however, the book doesnt take place in Peru, its in the Dominican. (I think the mistake is because he is Peruvian himself.) Please fix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnybeddow ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Good to see that this article is up and running now. We need the full Andrew B. Wolf reference. And more generally, we still need a bunch more reliable sources. Though I recognize that there will be fewer for this novel than for others, and that you'll be relying relatively heavily on reviews: it's only been out a few years. But no problem: it can just be a shorter article! Still, there will be journal articles out there, too, for instance. And references for the historical background -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sunnybeddow (
talk)
20:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)hey prof
i updated the andrew wolf reference. i have a few more references similar that im working on, but they are dissertations (and thus like 300 pages each) and there is very little info on this book at all.
i have no idea what happened to our notes section, we just noticed it. no idea how to fix it.
sunny
The following references were on the article page, but not doing anything. I'm putting them here in case they can become useful. You'd have thought some of them would.
-- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
And the following are poor sources, which should be replaced:
In any case, the second one is down at the moment. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 08:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Lead is exanded, this article probably will be advanced enough to be considered for a GA nom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 01:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Gareth was mentioning that you guys are having problems finding scholarly sources on this book. Obviously, as it's relatively recent, there is less available. In some ways that's a good thing, of course! This can be a somewhat shorter article and still refer to most or even almost all of the existent sources. You should mine those doctoral dissertations, which will also have bibliographies: what's useful there (unlike regular books) is that you can download them and search for key words.
Here are a couple of other sources, from the MLA Bibliography:
as well as perhaps:
But again, you're doing well already. I think you're close to a GA nomination. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 10:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that you nominate this for GA. You'll get a review, by the weekend at the latest I hope, which will give you a more detailed list of issues to work on. I don't know if it will pass, but it's close enough to nominate. Mike Christie (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Though comprehensive and employing a high quality of references, much of this article needs to be rewritten and appropriately cited to meet encyclopaedia standards.
Many thanks for this, which is most useful. I'd just say one thing about "tone." You say "'Trujillo is unable to control his bladder and his penis' is not appropriate encyclopedia tone; stick to the facts, leave the lurid descriptions to the reviewers." I'm not entirely sure what is lurid about this; it's certainly far less lurid than the book itself! This is also an important element of the book. I wonder if you could suggest some other wording? -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, just one other little detail, too. You say "The Imdb is not a reliable source and must be removed." I've looked into this, and it seems there's consensus that the IMDB is indeed reliable for some details, if not for others. I.e. for instance, for titles, dates, cast etc. (because those things are reviewed by IMDB editors) if not for critical opinions (because they are user generated). It's the former that are at issue for this article. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Afterthought: In the absence of an article for the film, its Imdb listing should be included as an external link in this article. Skomorokh 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok Team: I've made some changes to the plot, characters, and themes sections that I hope will satisfy some of our reviewer's suggestions. Some of the aspects I am less capable of fixing are as follows: the linking issue, the fair use of image issue, the use of IMDB and the reception of the film, and the issue of "creative quotation". Most of this is over my head and I'd love it if someone could help us out here, this is our last day after all. If there's more you'd like me to change or re-write, don't hesitate to say so. Thanks everyone.
Garethshort (
talk)
12:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In light of the commitment shown by editors of this article and the significant progress made since the original GA review, I am extending the GA Pass deadline until Monday 14 April. Aside from the issues unaddressed from the original review, two quick things that need improving include:
On the whole, excellent work so far – the revamping of the characters section and the use of Harvard referencing are two particularly marked improvements. Skomorokh 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and done a general copyedit, and I hope I didn't change the intended meaning of anything you wrote. I had a few additional comments:
I'll come back and take a look at the reviewer's other comments later tonight, or more likely tomorrow, and see what can be done about them. Mike Christie (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Made some of those changes you suggested, hopefully cleared it up. I used your suggested sentence, it fits perfectly, if you ask me. Anything else need work?
Garethshort (
talk)
06:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Garethshort ( talk) 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've done a quick scan and can't see much wrong. One thing I did notice is that there are no citations for the last paragraph of the critical reception. I don't think the material in the paragraph is controversial, so it may be fine without a citation, but it seems like these could be cited fairly easily. If not, I would suggest cutting the paragraph -- it's not important enough to need to keep it for GA, and it could be put back in at some future date for FA.
I'll do another read through now and see what else I can spot. Mike Christie (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I found two more things:
Fix these three points and I think we can ping Skomorokh and ask for him to reassess. Mike Christie (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've got them all fixed, did some digging for the correct citations. Garethshort ( talk) 22:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Great work here - it's the first time I've visited this for a while, and it's come on such a long way! I've also made a quick copyedit pass (up to Characters, I'll try to complete later). I've mainly tightened up the prose (basically, if a word can be cut without affecting the meaning, then cut it!). I've also added a couple of citation needed tags for statements that really should be cited; I don't usually do this as it can come over as a bit tactless, but I hope you don't mind :P EyeSerene talk 16:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations to all involved for your efforts on this article over the past fortnight, I have passed this article. It is of sufficiently broad in coverage, reasonably well-written, and adequately (though not perfectly) verified. I think it has enough in terms of content and breadth to be a strong candidate for featured status, but still does not read perfectly in the WP house style for my perhaps over-sensitive ears. Stricutres of no original research and attribution are more difficult to honour for literary topics where so much of the article consists in interpretation, but this is a surmountable difficulty. I recommend submitting to peer review, and wish you all the best of luck. Regards, Skomorokh 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Article is mostly there, though there are a few minor issues that remain and should be fixed.
Other than that, the article is very good. Cheers! Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |