Talk:The Feast of the Goat/GA

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Though comprehensive and employing a high quality of references, much of this article needs to be rewritten and appropriately cited to meet encyclopaedia standards.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article has issues with encyclopaedia tone. Some important features of the latter are never address the reader and attribute all opinions. Understand that we are not writing original research, or trying to get at the truth of a question; we are here to mindlessly parrot what published sources have to say about the topic, in as transparent a manner as possible. The Major themes section suffers quite badly from this; Statements like "They can help us understand some irrational forces of Latin tradition..." are inappropriate; instead, write "Dr. Academic, in his review of the book (Latin American Review, pg34-55) comments that the development of the novel's themes "can help us understand insert phenomenon here"."<insert reference here> "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.The prose can be choppy in places; paragraphs on or two lines long should be merged where possible. With regard to Manual of Style, the only major problem is that the article is chronically underlinked: the Major themes, Fact or fiction and Critical reception sections, which make up the bulk of the article, contain only 3 links between them. Names of people, places, publications and any terminology or concepts that might be unknown to the layman should be linked (though not repetitively); "senate" "puppet president" "realist" "narrative structure"? See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) for guidance. "See also" sections are for related articles that are not already linked in the article; as both of the see also links here are previously linked, the section is superfluous and should be removed. Given the paucity of images, the prose can be monotonous at times; you might want to break it up by using inventive quotation; {{quote}} {{bquote}} and {{quote_box}} are particularly good ways of doing this. See Pattern Recognition (novel) for an example of how these may be used effectively. The final quote of the Fact and fiction section might be an appropriate candidate for highlighting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The Imdb is not a reliable source and must be removed; that aside, the sources used are of a high quality. However, many questionable statements are presented as fact without inline citations. "The two important parts of machismo are aggressiveness and hyper-sexuality." - says who? "Vargas Llosa systematically links each conspirator with a specific historical event..." - this is presented as a quote, but readers are forced to go to the references to see who it is from. Instead say, "Susie Jenkins, in her 2004 paper "Paper name"<reference here> notes that Vargas Llosa "significantly links...etc." Failure to attribute statements (quoted or not) is pervasive in this article; as such, much of it appears as original research. The Critical reception is a good example of where you have got this right; just remember that Wikipedia needs this sort of attribution and referencing for regular claims as well as critical comments. There are two existing {{fact}} tags that need to be addressed.The bracketed references in the "Trujillo regime" section should be converted to notes like the others. The question marks should be removed with prejudice - if you do not know a given piece of information, highlighting your ignorance does nothing to help the reader; use WorldCat to find ISBN's.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The Plot section ends somewhat abruptly; it mentions significant plot points without having introduced them first, and wraps things up more quickly than the topic deserves. Secondly, the characters section has an {{expand}} tag, which ordinarily would cause the article to quick-fail GA criteria. The tag needs to be addressed one way or another; either be more selective with which characters are described, group several characters under one description, or do it the hard way and expand each character description to the requisite length. Please list the name of the film adaptation, and any relevant material about it (did it have the approval of the author? how was it critically/popularly received?) This article does not stray into unnecessary detail, and is well-focussed throughout.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Exemplary, very well balanced. It was very difficult to parse what opinion the writers of this article had of the novel, for which they deserve much praise!

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Commendable collaboration, no edit warring or content disputes.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image:Rafael Leonidas Trujillo.jpg has no fair use rationale explaining why it is acceptable to use this copyrighted image in the article. The caption is quite instructive, however. It would be nice to see more images, but I understand the difficulty of finding relevant free images in book articles.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing this article on hold for one week to give editors a chance at making improvements. Skomorokh 00:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

It's a lyrical description; great for a critical review or academic paper, not so great for an encyclopaedia, which aspires to be as boring as possible. As a standalone statement it can be interpreted as "Trujillo is a bed-wetting raging sex maniac"; if what you mean is "Trujillo is incontinent and sexually impotent", you should write just that, and do so in the same sentence as the mention about "physical failures". It helps to assume idiocy, unreasonable tendency to take things literally and lack of sympathy on the part of your readers. Some of us lack university educations and speak your horrible language less than fluently. :) Feel free to ask about anything else and disregard anything I say. Skomorokh 02:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what's "lyrical" about that sentence! It's much simpler (less clinical, less academic, and so more accessible), and yet at the same time more accurate, than "Trujillo is incontinent and sexually impotent." Anyhow, it's a detail I know. And I'm not sure that encylopaedic = boring! Quite the opposite: the very first criterion for featured articles, before all others, is that the prose should be "engaging." But again, your review is very useful and gives us a lot to go on. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical disabilities should be referred to using their medical titles, to avoid the impression that you are using terms like "unable control his bladder/penis" as an opaque analogy. I'm all too familiar with the FA criteria; the FA process tends to strip interesting articles full of entertaining original research and incisive observation into a laundry list of sanitized prose. But that's a side point, of course. Skomorokh 02:49, 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)

I am very pleased to here that; my attempts at using the resource as a citation in past GA efforts were rebuffed. You may still want to consider replacing it to avoid undue attention at WP:FAC at a later date, and in any case, the Imdb ref needs to be properly referenced using {{cite_web}} or similar. Regards, Skomorokh 02:49, 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)

I've added a fair use rationale for the image of Trujillo, Image:Rafael_Leonidas_Trujillo.jpg, so I hope that is now taken care of. Mike Christie (talk) 13:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also gone through and linked what I could find to link; I'd suggest we say this is addressed unless the reviewer has more specific comments. It was a little underlinked, but there are sections of the article that don't have much that can be linked, such as the discussions of the plot.

The article does need a copyedit; I will try to get to this tonight. I think if you get very close to GA, you might ask for an extension of a couple of days -- that's often done when the editors are working actively. It's up to the reviewer to agree, but many do, if the article is close. Mike Christie (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, running out of time to do this tonight; I was working on another article. If y'all think you can fix the other problems Skomorokh identified in his GA review, I suggest you ask him (on his talk page, or here) for an extension of two or three days. I'll do some copyediting tomorrow evening, if I can. Mike Christie (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help folks. It seems pretty close to me. Garethshort (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On hold extension

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:

• Lede: Try and balance it out a little and avoid stub paragraphs. An article of this length should have a minimum of two six-to-ten line paragraphs in the lead section. Currently the lede does not summarize the Fact or Fiction, Major themes, Critical reception or Adaptations sections.

I've expanded the lead and I think it now serves as a summary of these sections. Mike Christie (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Attribution: This aspect has improved, but you need to give the reader context when introducing someone else's analysis. We don't follow the academic standard of referring to people by their surname only, and the person's role or perspective needs to be identified in an adjective or two. So instead of "According to Niessa", it should read "According to literary scholar Peter Anthony Niessa". Ditto "As Olga Lorenzo observes," - who is Olga Lorenzo and why is she being referenced? Answer: the is a reviewer for The Melbourne Age - tell the reader this.

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)

Copyedit notes

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:

• The first paragraph of the plot summary says "the present day"; this isn't a good way to say it, given that (we hope) your words will be read on Wikipedia in twenty years time. I assume you mean in the time period when the novel was written? If so, I'd make this "from 1961 to the late 1990s" (or whenever it should be).
• "Each of these characters has been wronged by Trujillo and his regime, be it through their pride, their religious faith, their morality, their loved ones, or they themselves." What does the last one mean? He physically hurt them, or tortured them? If so, I think it's awkwardly phrased; maybe something like this would be better: "Each of these characters has been wronged by Trujillo and his regime, by torture and brutality, or through assaults on their pride, their religious faith, their morality, or their loved ones."
• "the almost unpalatable concessions made to the most vicious Trujillistas": can you explain what this means?
• "Power gives its wielder the ability to make prohibitions; these prohibitions are reflected in history, the study of which reveals what is and what is not told." I reworded this to "Power gives its wielder the ability to make prohibitions; these prohibitions are reflected in history, the study of which reveals what is and what is not told." Does this preserve the intended meaning?
  • Oops; I pasted the same text in both versions there. Here's what I meant to ask: "Power can be seen as a discourse of prohibition which can be reflected in history. History reflects on both what is and what is not told" was reworded as ""Power gives its wielder the ability to make prohibitions; these prohibitions are reflected in history, the study of which reveals what is and what is not told." Does this preserve the intended meaning? Mike Christie (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Everything looks good from the list above; I'll have a look at the GA comments next. Mike Christie (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've expanded the lead, which addressed one of Skomorokh's concerns. I have to head out now, but I should be able to give this some more attention this evening. I think we're pretty close now. If y'all can clean up the "reviewer" attributions (as I see Gareth is doing) then that will help. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got all the unexplained source names, and I'm not sure if there is anything left to address. Are we ok with keeping IMDB as a source? Am I missing anything else?

Garethshort (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What's left to pass GA

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:

• Direct quote of "thirty-one years of horrendous political crimes" needs a citation. If you don't know where it came from, I'd suggest reducing it to "thirty-one years in power".

Yup, this is done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Under Major Themes, Olga Lorenzo needs to be identified (e.g. as a critic, or reviewer, or whatever).

And this is done, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wow, you're fast. I looked through and yes, everything looks good now. I'll drop a note at Skomorokh's talk page.

By the way, I noticed something in your edits I should pass along; when you add a <ref> tag, it should go right after the nearest bit of punctuation, and shouldn't be preceded by a space. Usually there's a full stop or comma that it can follow, but sometimes there's no punctuation at the point you want to put the citation, in which case just put it right after the preceding word, again with no preceding space. Just FYI.

The article is in good shape; I look forward to seeing what else Skomorokh thinks needs to be done. Not too much, I hope! Mike Christie (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good tip, and yes, I hope so too. This is an interesting project, but there are four more course projects waiting in the wings! Thanks again for all your speedy help. Garethshort (talk) 22:54, 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)

I fixed up a couple of the citation problems. I'm not sure which sections Skomorokh feels are opinions, but I'd be happy to try and source them. As for expanding the adaptations section I can't say I know where to start, perhaps the person who wrote that section could take a stab at it. I'd really like to see this article pass GA review, so any tips on specific improvements needed would be welcome. How much time do we have left? Garethshort (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's finish this one up. You have no fixed deadline, but it's so close, it would be good to wrap it up. Indeed it might be good to have more specifics from Skomorokh. But, yes, let's get this one through GA and be done with it! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the "Adaptations" section. This does look done to me. I'll ping Skomorokh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree; I can't see any major outstanding issues now, but an update from Skomorokh would be useful. EyeSerene^talk 07:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinged. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Passed

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)

Congratulations all! EyeSerene^talk 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional comments

Article is mostly there, though there are a few minor issues that remain and should be fixed.

• A couple of manual of style issues; some unnecessary bold text in paragraphs, some dates need to be properly formatted and wiki-linked, etc. I would recommend a good copyedit by an editor that is familiar with the manual of style.
• The lead section is very long. See if you can shorten it a bit, keeping it to a good summary of the article.

Other than that, the article is very good. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)