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. |
The article is blatantly POV, pushing Sarmiento's interpretation of Argentine history as fact. Sarmiento's scholarship has come under intense criticism since the liberal standard for American history that he and Bartolomé Mitre helped established began to be reviewed in the early 20th century; there is an extensive history of Argentine historical revisionism that has challenged the validity of his data, his methods and his interpretation, to the point of completely subverting it. This should be mentioned, and socio-historical speculation about "caudillos" be attributed to Sarmiento as its author, not stated as fact; authoritarianism and bloodshed were attributes of the liberal governments heralded by Sarmiento as much as their opponent's (Sarmiento himself advised Mitre, in a letter already widely known in their own time, not to spare gaucho blood to pacify the land, as it is the only thing human abouth them). Taragüí @ 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Taragui is right, and more generally speaking, the entry is a bit thin. Much contextualization is needed. ProfesoraCero - 23:52 CST, 1 March 2006
I added to the article, trying make the article present the books writings more as the opinion of a man. I believe I was successful. I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone disagrees, do not hesistate to add the tag back in and talk about it here. Stop Me Now! 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to remove the NPOV tag by mistake. I agree with you that it reads NPOV now... removed tag QuiteUnusual 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just rated this "high" importance, as one of the foundational texts of Latin American literature. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:57, 31 January 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 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This article still desperately needs sourced information! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! We have been working in this article and I think that we have a good outline, Do we need other topics to get a better status? Hector. Hector Argene ( talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello! We have been working to improve this article. I believe that we have a good outline now. How could we achieve GA status? Bessiec ( talk) 06:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a real problem with the references here. Again, getting these right will save awful amounts of time in the future. As well as the examples above, for instance, rather than "Ross, "Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism" 18, presumably what's meant is a reference to Ross's translator's introduction. (The reference as it is makes it look as though she had written Facundo herself.) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also on the Sorensen, there seems some confusion with an article (that may or may not be being cited): "Reading Sarmiento: Writing the Myths of National Culture," from Sarmiento and His Argentina, edited by Joseph T. Criscenti. Again, this confusion needs to be sorted out. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - just dropping by on a whistle-stop tour of my watchlisted MMM articles! You're really getting this article into shape, and your hard work is much appreciated.
A few comments:
That'll do for now (!) Once all the content is in place, we can think about polishing the article in preparation for a Good article nomination (if that's the route you decide to follow). I'll be only too happy to get more actively involved at that point; obviously we on the FA-Team can't write the article, but once the subject experts (you!) have bulked it out we can dive in and help take care of formatting, layout, copyediting and other Wikipedia-specific tasks. You've done a fantastic job so far - keep up the good work! All the best, EyeSerene talk 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you so much for the help so far. We're planning on including another section once we've semi finished the things we have now. Also will try to cite the work clearly next time. Deeply apologetic. And again, thank you User talk:mjlee27 —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment about a couple of places in which you have two citations:
These are a little confusing, and I hope you can see why. If I want to know who is being quoted (Sarmiento or Moss and Valestuk in these two instances), the double reference doesn't help me. And if I guess, say, that it's Sarmiento who is writing "justice, peace, justice," then it's not obvious what the Mos and Valestuk reference is adding.
In general, I'd say such double references are a bad idea, for these reasons: they impede clarity. You can sometimes get away with it by being clear in the text itself: "Sarmiento says X; Moss and Valestuk comment Y." But in general it's a decent rule of thumb to avoid them. And an even better general principle to think about whether it is clear what a reference is doing in your text. If not: make it so!
Hope this helps. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Facundo for GA nomination as there is a reasonable probability that it will meet a GA reviewer's expectations based on the GA criteria. There is still work to do! However, Facundo is quite good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! You've done a fantastic job on this article so far, and now we're (hopefully) due for a GA review soon I think it would be a good time to polish up the content. The single biggest remaining task is a copyedit, so we might as well crack on with this asap. I'll make a start today, and post any questions/comments below this section. Please feel free to continue working on the article; the more the merrier ;) EyeSerene talk 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've left the lead until last since it may need to reflect changes in the article text. No point doing it twice ;)
I think we've got this section into shape now - anything we've missed? EyeSerene talk 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional comments:
In Spanish: Nunca tomé a Facundo, de Sarmiento, por una obra histórica, ni creo que pueda salir bien librada jugádola en tal respecto. Siempre me pareció una obra literaria, una novela a base histórica.
OK, I've completed a first pass, the object of which was to get the text into a reasonably readable condition. I think the next stage, per Awadewit's GA review below, is to look again at the article organisation. There are areas where information is duplicated, so perhaps we could think about how to rationalise the various sections? EyeSerene talk 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe we've reached a point where it might be useful to ask Awadewit to take another look at the article, per her GA review. The prose still needs work in places, and we're a little light on citations, but I think her assessment of our progress would be valuable. Does someone want to drop her a note? EyeSerene talk 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Language can cause grotesque misunderstandings! To me, a Unitarian is a Christian denomination and a pacifist one at that. I couldn't figure out what they had to do with dictators. Somewhere in the text, I think it ought to spell this out explicitly: "Not to be confused with the Christian denomination, the Unitarian Party was a liberal ...blah blah blah." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Following some discussion over at Talk:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, I figured a map on this article might be nice, too. One that showed the area described in the book, the extent of the pampas, etc. Here are a bunch you could choose from, but there are no doubt other possibilities elsewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Add the code [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|left(or right)|caption]]. Eg. [[Image:Facundo quiroga.jpg|thumb|right|Juan Facundo Quiroga]] would show as
-- 220.255.7.218 ( talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The translation of the Ludmer text *is* from 2002. What needs to be confirmed are the page numbers for the citations from that translation. The book is at Koerner PQ7652 .L813 2002, though it's currently out. It's also at the Vancouver Public Library: 860.9 L94g. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A fascinating and tricky text to write about! Here are my comments:
To pass GA:
After GA:
I will put this article on hold so that the editors can work on improving the "Themes" section and find a good copy editor. Awadewit ( talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit has provided a very thoughtful and helpful review. On her final point, let me remind editors that the copy of the text that you have includes (on pp. 24-26) a bibliography that is extensive without being unmanageable, and that is mainly of works in English. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys this section really needs work, Awadewid already mentioned that it fails to explain the dictatorship theme in relation to the book, and to that I would add that the examples of dictators are not very good choices. This book was published in 1845 and you begin the section by saying: In post-independence Latin American history..., in contrast, all three chosen examples are quite recent. An argument can perhaps be made for the inclusion of Pinochet since he at least served as inspiration for later writers of dictator novels but Chavez really doesn’t belong (not to mention the fact that calling him a dictator is controversial to say the least...) Also the second paragraph is confusing, it should probably be reworded (plus it needs a citation) PS: Overall the article has improved alot, Keep up the good work! Acer ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Indeed the section wasnt very relevant. Acer ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted almost the entire "Background" section as it was plagiarized from the Facundo article in Moss and Valestuk. It was stitched together from sentences and phrases in the article. Examples:
I don't need to give anyone another speech on why plagiarism is wrong. Please delete any remaining plagiarism from this article. Note that this article will have to be checked sentence-by-sentence against its sources to ensure that nothing else is plagiarized. I am, obviously, failing this article for GA. Without this section, the article lacks even the broad coverage required for GA. Before any further GA attempt, please have an uninvolved party check the sources against the text of this article to eliminate any lingering concerns that the article is plagiarized. Awadewit ( talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am meeting with the editors tomorrow to talk to them about this. For what it's worth, I'm satisfied that this is an instance of what's sometimes termed "inadvertent" plagiarism. But I'd point out that in fact neither Wikipedia nor UBC make that distinction between the intentional and the inadvertent. Here are some resources:
NB it would be good if Wikipedia also perhaps had some resources about this, though its policies are of course clear. Here, for instance, is the site's (co-)founder, Jimbo Wales: "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square." (found here). -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you're getting back on the horse here (to use an appropriate gaucho metaphor)! Again, good luck, guys! And yes, as I see you doing already, if in doubt cite verbatim rather than even attempting to paraphrase. We can work on paraphrase later, and in the process you can see how to do that rather tricky skill properly. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your keeness to repair the damage is pretty obvious. The repairs so far are good enough for a GA nomination. More work needs to be done and a copy edit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this listed at GAN and thought I'd take a stab at reviewing it, but it seems pretty obvious that the principle contributors may not think it completely ready for another nomination. It was only failed yesterday, after all. Should I remove it from the list? María ( habla con migo) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've copyedited up through the end of the Synopsis section, and here are some notes.
I hope these are useful -- feel free to ask for clarification or complain if I've misunderstood something. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Further comment re Citations:
I'm going through the sources here.
::whoops. This was actually in carilla's book. My apologies. --
Mjlee27 (
talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional:
Yay, you're making progress on these sources! Fantastic stuff! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I'm coming to the view that, with all the copyediting in the world, we're not going to solve the remaining repetition problems without surgery. The major issue is, I think, in the duplication of information between the Synopsis and Characters sections - particularly the bio of Facundo himself. Would anyone object if I experimented with the layout a little to see what can be done? (I promise I won't break anything!) EyeSerene talk 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have renominated this for GA given the progress we've seen over the past few days. You guys should keep on working on this, however, and there will no doubt be more to do after the reviewer comes by. But congrats on all you've done this past week! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And I should also say that we cannot expect to have more than the standard seven-day hold period to respond to any suggestions from the reviewer. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shortly into spot-reading the article, I find that I don't really understand the second and third sentence of the Legacy section. Perhaps that is my fault and the article is fine, but here are the questions I have thus far.
It's hard for me to parse out exactly what the article is trying to say, though I admit to likely not being the smartest reader on the planet city block. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 01:18, 13 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. |
The article is blatantly POV, pushing Sarmiento's interpretation of Argentine history as fact. Sarmiento's scholarship has come under intense criticism since the liberal standard for American history that he and Bartolomé Mitre helped established began to be reviewed in the early 20th century; there is an extensive history of Argentine historical revisionism that has challenged the validity of his data, his methods and his interpretation, to the point of completely subverting it. This should be mentioned, and socio-historical speculation about "caudillos" be attributed to Sarmiento as its author, not stated as fact; authoritarianism and bloodshed were attributes of the liberal governments heralded by Sarmiento as much as their opponent's (Sarmiento himself advised Mitre, in a letter already widely known in their own time, not to spare gaucho blood to pacify the land, as it is the only thing human abouth them). Taragüí @ 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Taragui is right, and more generally speaking, the entry is a bit thin. Much contextualization is needed. ProfesoraCero - 23:52 CST, 1 March 2006
I added to the article, trying make the article present the books writings more as the opinion of a man. I believe I was successful. I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone disagrees, do not hesistate to add the tag back in and talk about it here. Stop Me Now! 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like you forgot to remove the NPOV tag by mistake. I agree with you that it reads NPOV now... removed tag QuiteUnusual 09:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I've just rated this "high" importance, as one of the foundational texts of Latin American literature. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:57, 31 January 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 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This article still desperately needs sourced information! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! We have been working in this article and I think that we have a good outline, Do we need other topics to get a better status? Hector. Hector Argene ( talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello! We have been working to improve this article. I believe that we have a good outline now. How could we achieve GA status? Bessiec ( talk) 06:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a real problem with the references here. Again, getting these right will save awful amounts of time in the future. As well as the examples above, for instance, rather than "Ross, "Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism" 18, presumably what's meant is a reference to Ross's translator's introduction. (The reference as it is makes it look as though she had written Facundo herself.) -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also on the Sorensen, there seems some confusion with an article (that may or may not be being cited): "Reading Sarmiento: Writing the Myths of National Culture," from Sarmiento and His Argentina, edited by Joseph T. Criscenti. Again, this confusion needs to be sorted out. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all - just dropping by on a whistle-stop tour of my watchlisted MMM articles! You're really getting this article into shape, and your hard work is much appreciated.
A few comments:
That'll do for now (!) Once all the content is in place, we can think about polishing the article in preparation for a Good article nomination (if that's the route you decide to follow). I'll be only too happy to get more actively involved at that point; obviously we on the FA-Team can't write the article, but once the subject experts (you!) have bulked it out we can dive in and help take care of formatting, layout, copyediting and other Wikipedia-specific tasks. You've done a fantastic job so far - keep up the good work! All the best, EyeSerene talk 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thank you so much for the help so far. We're planning on including another section once we've semi finished the things we have now. Also will try to cite the work clearly next time. Deeply apologetic. And again, thank you User talk:mjlee27 —Preceding comment was added at 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment about a couple of places in which you have two citations:
These are a little confusing, and I hope you can see why. If I want to know who is being quoted (Sarmiento or Moss and Valestuk in these two instances), the double reference doesn't help me. And if I guess, say, that it's Sarmiento who is writing "justice, peace, justice," then it's not obvious what the Mos and Valestuk reference is adding.
In general, I'd say such double references are a bad idea, for these reasons: they impede clarity. You can sometimes get away with it by being clear in the text itself: "Sarmiento says X; Moss and Valestuk comment Y." But in general it's a decent rule of thumb to avoid them. And an even better general principle to think about whether it is clear what a reference is doing in your text. If not: make it so!
Hope this helps. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated Facundo for GA nomination as there is a reasonable probability that it will meet a GA reviewer's expectations based on the GA criteria. There is still work to do! However, Facundo is quite good. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 02:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi all! You've done a fantastic job on this article so far, and now we're (hopefully) due for a GA review soon I think it would be a good time to polish up the content. The single biggest remaining task is a copyedit, so we might as well crack on with this asap. I'll make a start today, and post any questions/comments below this section. Please feel free to continue working on the article; the more the merrier ;) EyeSerene talk 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: I've left the lead until last since it may need to reflect changes in the article text. No point doing it twice ;)
I think we've got this section into shape now - anything we've missed? EyeSerene talk 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional comments:
In Spanish: Nunca tomé a Facundo, de Sarmiento, por una obra histórica, ni creo que pueda salir bien librada jugádola en tal respecto. Siempre me pareció una obra literaria, una novela a base histórica.
OK, I've completed a first pass, the object of which was to get the text into a reasonably readable condition. I think the next stage, per Awadewit's GA review below, is to look again at the article organisation. There are areas where information is duplicated, so perhaps we could think about how to rationalise the various sections? EyeSerene talk 14:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe we've reached a point where it might be useful to ask Awadewit to take another look at the article, per her GA review. The prose still needs work in places, and we're a little light on citations, but I think her assessment of our progress would be valuable. Does someone want to drop her a note? EyeSerene talk 08:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Language can cause grotesque misunderstandings! To me, a Unitarian is a Christian denomination and a pacifist one at that. I couldn't figure out what they had to do with dictators. Somewhere in the text, I think it ought to spell this out explicitly: "Not to be confused with the Christian denomination, the Unitarian Party was a liberal ...blah blah blah." Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 18:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Following some discussion over at Talk:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, I figured a map on this article might be nice, too. One that showed the area described in the book, the extent of the pampas, etc. Here are a bunch you could choose from, but there are no doubt other possibilities elsewhere. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Add the code [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|left(or right)|caption]]. Eg. [[Image:Facundo quiroga.jpg|thumb|right|Juan Facundo Quiroga]] would show as
-- 220.255.7.218 ( talk) 03:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The translation of the Ludmer text *is* from 2002. What needs to be confirmed are the page numbers for the citations from that translation. The book is at Koerner PQ7652 .L813 2002, though it's currently out. It's also at the Vancouver Public Library: 860.9 L94g. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A fascinating and tricky text to write about! Here are my comments:
To pass GA:
After GA:
I will put this article on hold so that the editors can work on improving the "Themes" section and find a good copy editor. Awadewit ( talk) 04:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit has provided a very thoughtful and helpful review. On her final point, let me remind editors that the copy of the text that you have includes (on pp. 24-26) a bibliography that is extensive without being unmanageable, and that is mainly of works in English. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 09:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Guys this section really needs work, Awadewid already mentioned that it fails to explain the dictatorship theme in relation to the book, and to that I would add that the examples of dictators are not very good choices. This book was published in 1845 and you begin the section by saying: In post-independence Latin American history..., in contrast, all three chosen examples are quite recent. An argument can perhaps be made for the inclusion of Pinochet since he at least served as inspiration for later writers of dictator novels but Chavez really doesn’t belong (not to mention the fact that calling him a dictator is controversial to say the least...) Also the second paragraph is confusing, it should probably be reworded (plus it needs a citation) PS: Overall the article has improved alot, Keep up the good work! Acer ( talk) 00:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call. Indeed the section wasnt very relevant. Acer ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted almost the entire "Background" section as it was plagiarized from the Facundo article in Moss and Valestuk. It was stitched together from sentences and phrases in the article. Examples:
I don't need to give anyone another speech on why plagiarism is wrong. Please delete any remaining plagiarism from this article. Note that this article will have to be checked sentence-by-sentence against its sources to ensure that nothing else is plagiarized. I am, obviously, failing this article for GA. Without this section, the article lacks even the broad coverage required for GA. Before any further GA attempt, please have an uninvolved party check the sources against the text of this article to eliminate any lingering concerns that the article is plagiarized. Awadewit ( talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am meeting with the editors tomorrow to talk to them about this. For what it's worth, I'm satisfied that this is an instance of what's sometimes termed "inadvertent" plagiarism. But I'd point out that in fact neither Wikipedia nor UBC make that distinction between the intentional and the inadvertent. Here are some resources:
NB it would be good if Wikipedia also perhaps had some resources about this, though its policies are of course clear. Here, for instance, is the site's (co-)founder, Jimbo Wales: "There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square." (found here). -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you're getting back on the horse here (to use an appropriate gaucho metaphor)! Again, good luck, guys! And yes, as I see you doing already, if in doubt cite verbatim rather than even attempting to paraphrase. We can work on paraphrase later, and in the process you can see how to do that rather tricky skill properly. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Your keeness to repair the damage is pretty obvious. The repairs so far are good enough for a GA nomination. More work needs to be done and a copy edit. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this listed at GAN and thought I'd take a stab at reviewing it, but it seems pretty obvious that the principle contributors may not think it completely ready for another nomination. It was only failed yesterday, after all. Should I remove it from the list? María ( habla con migo) 16:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've copyedited up through the end of the Synopsis section, and here are some notes.
I hope these are useful -- feel free to ask for clarification or complain if I've misunderstood something. Mike Christie (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Further comment re Citations:
I'm going through the sources here.
::whoops. This was actually in carilla's book. My apologies. --
Mjlee27 (
talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Additional:
Yay, you're making progress on these sources! Fantastic stuff! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I'm coming to the view that, with all the copyediting in the world, we're not going to solve the remaining repetition problems without surgery. The major issue is, I think, in the duplication of information between the Synopsis and Characters sections - particularly the bio of Facundo himself. Would anyone object if I experimented with the layout a little to see what can be done? (I promise I won't break anything!) EyeSerene talk 16:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have renominated this for GA given the progress we've seen over the past few days. You guys should keep on working on this, however, and there will no doubt be more to do after the reviewer comes by. But congrats on all you've done this past week! -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And I should also say that we cannot expect to have more than the standard seven-day hold period to respond to any suggestions from the reviewer. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Shortly into spot-reading the article, I find that I don't really understand the second and third sentence of the Legacy section. Perhaps that is my fault and the article is fine, but here are the questions I have thus far.
It's hard for me to parse out exactly what the article is trying to say, though I admit to likely not being the smartest reader on the planet city block. --
Michael Devore (
talk) 01:18, 13 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. |