![]() | A fact from Tomás Rivera appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 December 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is where alannaj and trowan are going to put their plan... -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So far, our plan will include the following steps
1) First, we will have to fill out the page and add more categories to the site
2) We need to find more resources on Rivera’s life and his works
3) We hope to do a summary on “…y no se lo trago la tierra”
4) The first section to fill out will be on Rivera’s early life and biography and hopefully to combine his “life” and “legacy” sections into one a. Also, we hope that his ‘life section’ will have some sub-sections
5) In addition to the article updating, we would like to try and find some pictures of Rivera and maybe some book covers too.
6) While expanding the articles, we are going to try and tie in themes from other readings by chicano/a authors and then link the article to others
7) We will most likely combine the “works” section and the “criticisms” sections since they are very small and have very little detail
8) We will create a section for Works, but will hopefully have sub-sections within this that will include his novels, poetry, non-fiction, and films
9) Also, as far as the “civic activities” section, we would like to re-work this into the ‘life section’
10) We need more references and articles still but have collected some so far and would like to use as wide a variety of English and Spanish articles
Some of these may change as we progress but essentially we are hoping that with these changes to the article that we will be able to upgrade it to something that people will want to read and will want to use as a reference
-- Alannaj ( talk) 04:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).I took the above from the "criticism" section of the current article. It's a start! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
--
Alannaj (
talk)
23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Trowan ( talk) 10:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments on bibliography This is a decent start, but it could be more comprehensive. The MLA bibliography, for instance, has other results for Rivera. ( This one, for instance.) You'll also be wanting to further annotate these references as you get hold of them and start working with them to improve the article. And I had to correct the information for some of these references. Good luck! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, it looks as though this is the only edit made by the WP:NRG group to this article over the whole of the semester so far.
This is not enough! We need to see some progress. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yay, congrats on making a move! More needed! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that the source that you added here is the right one? If so, we will need the relevant page numbers, as this is not, so far as I can see, an online text. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
i put in the names of the authors and they are in my bibliography, should i put in the URL instead? -- Alannaj ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I see that the source in question is in fact the following:
However, as I say above, really, this isn't a great source. It's a textbook, and in any case only has a paragraph or two (on page 20) directly about him. I wouldn't use this. We can leave the information in for now, but you are going to need better sources than this before you put the article up for good article nomination. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys, it's November 9th, and your article has exactly one reliable, well-referenced source, though that is only a one-page introduction in an anthology. You must do better than this. What about using some of the sources in the bibliography that you compiled six weeks ago?? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You may or may not want to use this reference about the film. I've taken it out of the article for now. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is an edited volume, we need to be sure to be referencing the individual articles. So it's not enough to simply put "Lattin." It must be (say) Smith, with a reference below to Smith's essay, with its title and page numbers etc. --03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've upgraded this article to C class. There's still some ways to go, but well done on the recent progress! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I say, this article has really improved recently. Well done! Above all, you have replaced almost all of the earlier poor references with much better ones. Excellent. Here are my thoughts about what most obviously needs to be done:
But again, this is really motoring. Well done and keep it up! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, jbmurray asked me to review this article for you. I've brought my share of articles to GA and FA and I frequently review articles at FAC. My comments will be similar to those you would get at FAC. I am not familiar with the article subject, so I'm probably your target reader anyway! Overall, I think that the article is a good start, but it still needs quite a bit of work. It reads too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I understand that is can be difficult for you as students to write in the non-essayish style, because that goes against what you have been trained to do. It is very important, though, that this article be in the encyclopedic style. Overall, that means: a) present facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions b) don't present opinions as facts c) use neutral language rather than overly effusive compliments and d) provide enough context so that the readers can come to the same conclusions (show me why he was great, don't just tell me that he was great). From reading this article, I do not understand why he is important for his writing. More explanation would help. The following are more comments, some very nitpicky. Don't lose sight of the fact that you are doing a good job so far (reviews generally focus on the room for improvement, not the stuff that is already good). I
I am watching this page, so feel free to ask questions here about the review or anything else about the article-building process and I'll try to answer. Karanacs ( talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Tomás Rivera appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 2 December 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is where alannaj and trowan are going to put their plan... -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So far, our plan will include the following steps
1) First, we will have to fill out the page and add more categories to the site
2) We need to find more resources on Rivera’s life and his works
3) We hope to do a summary on “…y no se lo trago la tierra”
4) The first section to fill out will be on Rivera’s early life and biography and hopefully to combine his “life” and “legacy” sections into one a. Also, we hope that his ‘life section’ will have some sub-sections
5) In addition to the article updating, we would like to try and find some pictures of Rivera and maybe some book covers too.
6) While expanding the articles, we are going to try and tie in themes from other readings by chicano/a authors and then link the article to others
7) We will most likely combine the “works” section and the “criticisms” sections since they are very small and have very little detail
8) We will create a section for Works, but will hopefully have sub-sections within this that will include his novels, poetry, non-fiction, and films
9) Also, as far as the “civic activities” section, we would like to re-work this into the ‘life section’
10) We need more references and articles still but have collected some so far and would like to use as wide a variety of English and Spanish articles
Some of these may change as we progress but essentially we are hoping that with these changes to the article that we will be able to upgrade it to something that people will want to read and will want to use as a reference
-- Alannaj ( talk) 04:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link).I took the above from the "criticism" section of the current article. It's a start! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
--
Alannaj (
talk)
23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Trowan ( talk) 10:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Comments on bibliography This is a decent start, but it could be more comprehensive. The MLA bibliography, for instance, has other results for Rivera. ( This one, for instance.) You'll also be wanting to further annotate these references as you get hold of them and start working with them to improve the article. And I had to correct the information for some of these references. Good luck! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 17:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Guys, it looks as though this is the only edit made by the WP:NRG group to this article over the whole of the semester so far.
This is not enough! We need to see some progress. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yay, congrats on making a move! More needed! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that the source that you added here is the right one? If so, we will need the relevant page numbers, as this is not, so far as I can see, an online text. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
i put in the names of the authors and they are in my bibliography, should i put in the URL instead? -- Alannaj ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, now I see that the source in question is in fact the following:
However, as I say above, really, this isn't a great source. It's a textbook, and in any case only has a paragraph or two (on page 20) directly about him. I wouldn't use this. We can leave the information in for now, but you are going to need better sources than this before you put the article up for good article nomination. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys, it's November 9th, and your article has exactly one reliable, well-referenced source, though that is only a one-page introduction in an anthology. You must do better than this. What about using some of the sources in the bibliography that you compiled six weeks ago?? -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You may or may not want to use this reference about the film. I've taken it out of the article for now. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
As this is an edited volume, we need to be sure to be referencing the individual articles. So it's not enough to simply put "Lattin." It must be (say) Smith, with a reference below to Smith's essay, with its title and page numbers etc. --03:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I've upgraded this article to C class. There's still some ways to go, but well done on the recent progress! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, as I say, this article has really improved recently. Well done! Above all, you have replaced almost all of the earlier poor references with much better ones. Excellent. Here are my thoughts about what most obviously needs to be done:
But again, this is really motoring. Well done and keep it up! -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi everyone, jbmurray asked me to review this article for you. I've brought my share of articles to GA and FA and I frequently review articles at FAC. My comments will be similar to those you would get at FAC. I am not familiar with the article subject, so I'm probably your target reader anyway! Overall, I think that the article is a good start, but it still needs quite a bit of work. It reads too much like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. I understand that is can be difficult for you as students to write in the non-essayish style, because that goes against what you have been trained to do. It is very important, though, that this article be in the encyclopedic style. Overall, that means: a) present facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions b) don't present opinions as facts c) use neutral language rather than overly effusive compliments and d) provide enough context so that the readers can come to the same conclusions (show me why he was great, don't just tell me that he was great). From reading this article, I do not understand why he is important for his writing. More explanation would help. The following are more comments, some very nitpicky. Don't lose sight of the fact that you are doing a good job so far (reviews generally focus on the room for improvement, not the stuff that is already good). I
I am watching this page, so feel free to ask questions here about the review or anything else about the article-building process and I'll try to answer. Karanacs ( talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)