Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Reference problem

OK, there's a problem with the following reference:

This novel was the first to be written in English by a Mexican living in the United States."[1]

The first problem is where does the quotation start? There's a closing quotation mark, but not an opening one. The second problem is that we need an exact pagee number. At present the footnote states "Rivera 2006, p. 82." But in the reference, the Rivera article is from 2004, and takes up pages 451-470. So the reference is wrong at preent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from Rivera 2006 page 82. The entire book article is from page 82-109 I will make the necessary corrections on the quote. Thank You--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... The book article that is in the references starts on page 451. Is there some other Rivera article that is not included in the References? This needs to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, now I've fixed this. 1) It wasn't a quotation, so I removed the quotation mark. 2) It was a reference to a different book, other than the one included in the References section, so I removed the book that was there and added the right one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that the other two quotations from this book were mis-transcribed, and either had no page number or had the wrong page number. I fixed these.[1] [2] But beware. You must be accurate when citing from sources! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I note that there's been movement on the plot summary, which is grand. But do take a look not only at your model articles (such as The General in His Labyrinth and El Señor Presidente), where you'll see how much space a plot summary takes up, but also this guideline. A plot summary should be around 300-500 words. I note that you guys have written 718 words already, and not got past page 25... You're going to have to be much more concise than this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way... Again, the point is to use the bibliography you have compiled, rather than simply to go through the plot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article so far. Plot summaries are difficult to get right, but it's better to have too much than too little, as it can always be snipped... ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with EyeSerene. Ignore your professor :-) and write-write-write. Then sleep-sleep-sleep. Then cut-cut-cut! (On wikipedia, the technical term for the last stage is "copyediting" :-) Geometry guy 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's probably not bad advice to ignore me, at least from time to time... Indeed, I'm sorry but I had to cut out a reference you just added. Sadly, my lectures are not reliable sources. (I know, it's a crying shame!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

genre = 19th century fiction

Hello! When the infobox asks for the "genre" of the novel, it's asking for something from this, not 19th century fiction. :) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I think that for most books this field is more trouble than it's worth. I've removed it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a big deal. Just wanted to be sure that your students knew what it was supposed to mean. =) Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing...

I don't know if you guys will know the answer to this, but what is with the links in the references? The links seem to go nowhere... —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. There are no links in the references. If you mean the references in the bibliography, on this page, above... You need a JSTOR or EBSCO subscription to access them online. Anyone who is reading this from a major university can usually see them, so it's helpful to many, if not to all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry—I meant the "Notes" section. :) —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
When you click a footnote, the appropriate work in the References section is highlighted. The only one for which this is not the case is Madsen. We need the info on that! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just made an educated guess on the Madsen, and fixed the reference. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Whoa....cool...I've never seen that before! =) Never mind then. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

 Done*Alemán, Jesse (2007), "Citizenship Rights and Colonial Whites: The Cultural Work of María Amparo Ruiz de Burton's Novels", in Goldstein, David S.; Thacker, Audrey B. (eds.), Complicating Constructions: Race, Ethnicity, and Hybridity in American Texts, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, pp. 3–30, ISBN 9780295986814.  DoneA discussion of Who Would Have Thought It (p.3-17) and The Squatter and the Don (p.17-24) in relation to the period it was written. This text was especially helpful in creating the major theme section. The notes on (p.24-30) inspire further research --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Alemán, Jesse (2004), ""Thank God, Lolita Is Away from Those Horrid Savages": The Politics of Whiteness in Who Would Have Thought It?", in de la Luz Montes, Amelia María; Goldman, Anne E. (eds.), María Amparo Ruiz de Burton: Critical and Pedagogical Perspectives, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 95–111, ISBN 978-0803203983.

very good interpretation of characters and passages from the book! very useful for the PLOT SUMMARY.--Annac89 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Donediscusses the influence of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in Ruiz de Burton's creation of the story and provides interpretations from a historical perspective. The text discusses Lola, Julian and Isaac Sprig in depth --Nicolecruz (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

a thorough discussion of mestizaje and hybridity --Nicolecruz (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • de la Luz Montes, Amelia María (2000), "Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton Negotiates American Literary Politics and Culture", in Warren, Joyce W.; Dickie, Margaret (eds.), Challenging Boundaries: Gender and Periodization, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, pp. 202–225, ISBN 9780820321240.

 DoneDe la Luz Montes decribes the historical influences in Ruiz de Burton's writing and offers a historical perspective behind the symbolisms. She explains Who Would Have Thought It? and "The Squatter and the Don" through an understanding of Ruiz de Burton's life. She says that the two major factors that affected Ruiz de Burton's life were the Mexican rule and American colonization of California. Pages 203-204 and 209 mention Who Whould Have Thought It? directly--Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • de la Luz Montes, Amelia (2002), ""See How I Am Received." Nationalism, Race, and Gender in Who Would Have Thought It?", in Aldama, Arturo J.; Quiñonez, Naomi Helena (eds.), Decolonial Voices: Chicana and Chicano Cultural Studies in the 21st Century WA, Indiana University Press, pp. 177–185, ISBN 9780253340146.

-good explanation of parody and irony in the book. "The contradictions of American ideology in regard to the Mexican American"(pg.178)--Annac89 (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Goldman, Anne E. " ‘Who Ever Heard of a Blue-Eyed Mexican?’: Satire and Sentimentality in María Amparo Ruiz de Burton 's Who Would Have Thought It?" In Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage, vol. 2, ed. Erlinda Gonzales-Berry and Chuck Tatum. Houston: Arte Público Press, 1996.
  • Goldman, Anne E. (2004), "Beasts in the Jungle", in de la Luz Montes, Amelia María, Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton, New York: University of Nebraska Press

 Donea brief yet informative overview of the novel and a concise description of the author. Hendrick includes personal opinions and discusses the republication of the book and summarizes some of Sanchez and Pita's points. This article can potentially be used in the criticism section--Nicolecruz (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

discuses the proximity between gender and race. Jacobs also redefines whiteness and describes the social stratification within that race. She also argues that whiteness is beyond color --Nicolecruz (talk) 08:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Madsen, Deborah L. (1998), American Exceptionalism, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-1853312090.

 Done*:very useful information on pages 110-113 ("Annexation: Chicano Responses to the ideology of Exceptionalism") about Mrs.Norval and waht she represents. Talks of other characters but most informative about Mrs.Noval. Also, a good overview of the history--Annac89 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Pita, Beatrice. "Engendering Critique: Race, Class, and Gender in Ruiz de Burton and Martí." José Martí's 'Our America': From National to Hemispheric Cultural Studies. 129-144. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1998.

 Done discussion of Jose Marti's 'Our America' in relation to both Who Would Have Thought It? and Squatter and the Don. The text also makes a good argument on gender.--Nicolecruz (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture New York, NY: New York UP, 2006.
  • Rivera, John-Michael (2004), "Embodying Greater Mexico: María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and the Reconstruction of the Mexican Question", in Smith, Jon; Cohn, Deborah (eds.), Look Away! The U.S. South in New World Studies, Durham, NC: Duke Univesity Press, pp. 451–470, ISBN 978-0822333166.

 Done*Ruiz, Julie. "Captive Identities: The Gendered Conquest of Mexico in Who Would Have Thought It?." María Amparo Ruiz de Burton: Critical and Pedagogical Perspectives. 112-132. Lincoln, NE: U of Nebraska P, 2004.

  • Sánchez, María Carla (2001), "??", in Sánchez, María Carla; Schlossberg, Linda (eds.), Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion, New York: New York University Press, pp. 64–91, ISBN 0-8147-8123-3.

Who Would Have Thought It in relation to other Chichano books that suceeded it. It also mentions the treaty of Hidalgo Page 67,81-87 --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Sánchez, Rosaura (1998), "Dismantling the Colossus: Martí and Ruiz de Burton on the Formulation of Anglo América", in Fernández, Raúl A.; Belnap, Jeffrey Grant (eds.), José Martí's "Our America": From National to Hemispheric Cultural Studies, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 115–128, ISBN 978-0822321330. Koerner library: F1783.M38 J68 1998.
Thank you for finding the call number and I was able to search for the book at Koerner. I do not think I will be able to recall the book in time for our deadline. The borrower has the book until 04/15/2009. Thanks again--Nicolecruz (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Nicole, yes you should recall it! Once a book is recalled, then the borrower has to hand it back within a week or two, which is easily in time for your deadline.
But this is also why I got you to do your bibliography early on: so you can figure out what you need to recall or to order from inter-library loan where necessary. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)  Done

This is 246 pages long. Page 51, 80 and 102 mention Who Would Have Thought It? directly--Nicolecruz (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Sánchez, Rosaura; Pita, Beatrice (2005), "Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton and the Power of Her Pen", in Ruiz, Vicky; Korrol, Virginia Sanchez (eds.), Latina Legacies, Oxford University Press US, pp. 72–84, ISBN 0195153987.


NB I'm helping out to format these a bit. But you put them up as best as you can, with as much information as you can; don't worry about the fancy stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on bibliography This is a decent start, and fairly comprehensive. You'll also be wanting to annotate these references as you get hold of them and start working with them to improve the article. There is or was some missing information for some of these references. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

PLAN

Okay, so here is our plan to begin our article.

  1. Meet up weekly to share articles that we've found online and visit the library for further references. Done
  2. Write up our bibliography list  Done
  3. Expand on what we've started so far and decide headings(such as History, Theme etc,) Done --Annac89 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  4. Begin with introduction and continue with a detailed discussion of the plot (making a summary)
  5. Go into detail after our summary to cover the characters and major themes  Done
  6. Expand on the history relating to the book by familiarizing ourselves with author as well as reception and criticism of the book.  Done
  7. Create an additional section; Style (the irony and critism)  Done
  8. After we have a rough draft of each heading, we will log in frequently to add and revise  Done
  9. From our research and further readings, we hope that more themes/aspects will come to light to clarify ideas we already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annac89 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC) --Annac89 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  1. make the transition from a stub, mid-important article to a featured article --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Important dates (from North de Rio Grande page)
  1. September 26, - bibliography, submit article for peer review.
  2. November 10- Good article nominations.
  3. November 26-featured article candidacy submission

--Nicolecruz (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct.20.08 - goals for next mon! Assign parts in general, but make sure we edit and expand on eachother's sections! Plot Summary-alex Intro and characters- anna + nic --Annac89 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good plan. You can of course add to it over time. And cross things off when you've done them, including adding a big green checkmark {{done}}  Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct.27.08 Hey guys! i removed the headings that have not been started yet because our page looks incomplete with all those empty headings!! Add it back when we actually have something to write. (Removed MAJOR THEMES) --Annac89 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine. NB, however, as I was telling Nicolecruz today, this is indeed an important section. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Annac89, please introduce your quote for Mrs. Norval and write the character descriptions for Reverend Hackwell. You can mention Emma Hackwell in Reverend Hackwell's description since she isn't a major character anyway. I will work on the major themes in the next few days.--Nicolecruz (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Annac89, you mentioned that you have excellentn materials on manifest destiny. please write about it over the weekend so I can merge it into my discussion on how it affects class well before the deadline. Thanks.--Nicolecruz (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Nicolecruz, I have started something for all of the characters already, i will have them finished by monday. I also have a few very good references(quotes) that will fit in very well to Race and Gender which i will add in over the weekend. Yes, i will give you my notes for the manifest destiny as soon as i am finished with the characters :) --Annac89 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Annac89, you can write about Manifest Destiny instead of giving the notes to me since you have seen from which context it comes from. Also, I now have Jose Marti's "Our America" which is especially helpful. Let me know if you are needing additional references. I think I have enough on race and gender but put the quotes for on the talk page anyways. I could compare it to what I have already used. --Nicolecruz (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Annac89, I've edited more of the technical details on Julian. Please clarify why Mrs. Norval demanded Julian to return home and were you intentionally implying that this had something to do with Lola and Emma?
Nicolecruz, I am still working on Julian so there will be quite a bit to be clarified until i am finished —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annac89 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To do

OK, guys, you've put this in for Good Article Nomination. Well and bravely done! You've certainly come a long way since the beginning of the semester.

There are, however, a few things you definitely need to do to this article, and any reviewer will tell you as much, so you should do them as soon as possible, ideally before a reviewer comes by:

  • First, the article should have no clean-up tags. At present it has two: on what are currently footnotes 19 and 36. Done --Annac89 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Second, there are some sections that could do with some expansion. I'm thinking particularly of Background (see the Sánchez and Pita introduction on this), Technical Devices (which could probably be renamed "Style"), and Criticism (which can be merged with "Publication history" and renamed "Criticism and reception"; see Aranda for this, perhaps).
  • Third, there are still some sections or subsections that consist of unadorned quotation. These include the sections on "Irony and satire," "Class," "Gender," and "Criticism." The thoughts and opinions of critics need to be set into context and introduced; though you don't need to avoid quotation altogether, you should use paraphrase more often, and introduce and explain what they have to say.
  • Fourth, the lead needs expansion so it reflects the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD.

With the above, it is possible that a reviewer may fail this article outright at WP:GAN. If that happens, don't be discouraged: the beauty of the Wiki is that you can try and try again. Nothing's final. However, let's try to avoid that by fixing the above issues in the next day or two.

Again, you guys have come a long way. You're on the final straight!

Once these major issues are sorted, we can also worry about such things as copy-editing.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with these comments. I think the priorities are paraphrasing or supplementing unadorned quotation, expanding sections on style and critical reception, while cutting and copyediting plot and character sections to make them more encyclopedic. Once that's done, we'll be in good shape to rewrite the lead! I can help with that. Geometry guy 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am posting the first part of my review now - I will post the second part later tonight. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Where this article fails the GA criteria
  • 1a) incoherent and ungrammatical prose throughout the text
  • 1b) fails WP:LEAD
  • 2b) quotations are unattributed in the text
  • 3a) genre and reception are barely touched on in the article
  • 3b) plot summary and character descriptions go into unnecessary detail
Hi Awadewit, I'm going to put a name under each of the headings to oversee that things are getting crossed off but we will not limit ourselves to just editing our assigned sections. --Nicolecruz (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Lead

Nicole

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD (please read this page for help on how to write leads - they are difficult). Think of the lead as a miniature version of the article - it needs to be able to standalone. Some readers only read the lead - shocking, isn't it? :)
  • Example: *Who Would Have Thought It? is a novel written by María Ruiz de Burton that was published in 1872. - Help the reader learn about Ruiz de Burton - can you describe her in a phrase or two in this sentence?
  • The lead is still not a summary of the article. It contains details like the connection to Huck Finn not in the article (these details shouldn't be in the lead anyway) and large sections of the article are not even referred to, such as the "Styles" and "Themes". Awadewit (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The infobox contained information from several editions, so I deleted everything that wasn't about the first edition. However, I wasn't sure about the number of pages - does that describe the first edition? You might consider deleting the infobox entirely. Infoboxes are not required and this one does not seem to assist the reader.
Background

Anna

  • The "Background" section needs to be expanded:
  • I would add a few more sentences describing Ruiz de Burton's biographical background.
 DoneAdded more information about her family, marriage and where she lived--Annac89 (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
This section has improved dramatically! Wow! The reader has a much better idea of who Ruiz de Burton is and the historical context surrounding the composition of the book. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ruiz de Burton was a native of Baja California who moved to Alta California in 1847 and witnessed the economic, social and political turmoil of the American Civil War. - I think you need to explain to readers how she experienced the effects of the Civil War in California - most readers associate the Civil War with the eastern United States.
  • She was married to Colonel Henry S. Burton, who had been sent to Baja California to suppress a Mexican uprising. - When did she marry him? What Mexican uprising?  Done
Riviera sources does not state specifically which Mexican uprising so I've decided to take it out.--Annac89 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
July 7th 1849 marriage --Annac89 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
(Small note: I've refactored this comment. It is generally not a good idea to interrupt other users' comments with your own. It is confusing.) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Plot summary

Nicole

  • The "Plot summary" is too long and is much too difficult to follow. I have listed some places where the reader becomes confused, but it might be best to entirely rewrite the plot summary. Try to think of what major events the reader must know about to understand the general narrative arc of the story rather than trying to detail all of the twists and turns of the plot. Also, remember that plot summaries don't have to be told in the same order as the original novel.
  • If Hackwell is a minister, he should not be referred to as "Mr" but rather "Rev".
  • A rare error, Awadewit! One should not address a reverend as "Reverend Surname." It can be "Mr. Hackwell," "Rev. Mr. Hackwell," or "Rev. Toby [for now I forget his first name] Hackweel," but never "Rev. Hackwell." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, my father goes by "Rev. X" and he's a Protestant minister. :) Perhaps it was different in the nineteenth century? Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Another PK, eh? Mine, too. (Though he's a Rev. Dr., so the issue doesn't arise....) Anyhow, see the Wikipedia article on the topic: '"The Reverend" is traditionally used with Christian names (or initials) and surname, such as "The Reverend John Smith" or "The Reverend J.F. Smith". Use of the prefix with the surname alone ("The Reverend Smith") is considered a solecism in traditional usage (although "The Reverend Father Smith" or "The Reverend Mr Smith" are correct though somewhat old-fashioned uses).'
  • In any case, in the novel he is certainly both a Reverend and Mr. Hackwell. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, you're pointing me to the Wikipedia article as a reference!? :) As for how to refer to him in the plot summary, we should the follow the novel's style, clearly. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The novel begins in the middle of a conversation between two New England pastors, Rev. Hackwell and Rev. Hammerhard, who reveal themselves to have questionable attributes despite their positions at the local Protestant Church. - What is questionable about them?
I erased this. It is not as important as the rest of the text
  • Their gossip about the people in New England - They gossip about people in all of New England? Done
  • they gossip about the Cackle and the Norval families --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Their gossip about the people in New England serves as an introduction to the Cackle family, Mrs. Norval and the absent Dr. Norval, whom the ministers have described as a social delinquent, hinting at his supposed Southern sympathies as a Democrat at a time in which there was increasing tension between the North and the South. - run-on sentence
  • She explained that she was a captive of the Apache, and requested that her daughter Lola be taken away from captivity. - It is not clear how this could happen - if Lola was being held captive, how could Dr. Norval take her away? Does he steal her out of captivity? Done
  • Yes, Dr. Norval steals her from captivity but I used the word rescue instead --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Sinclair was in charge of investing the gold in properties and other investments that will increase Lola's wealth. Lebrun transcribed this and additional information that will help find Don Medina and he promised to mail the transcription once it is finished. - The reader does not know who Sinclair and Lebrun are - they are suddenly introduced at this point. Either take these details out, if they are unnecessary, or explain who these characters are. Done
*Sinclair and Lebrun are now introduced as Dr. Norval's companions during the trip.--Nicolecruz (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Mrs. Norval's intentions and motivations are unclear in the plot summary.
  • This has been made much clearer. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • During this time, Rev. Hackwell uses his influence to manipulate Mrs. Norval and they plot to keep Lola's fortune for themselves. - Why is Rev. Hackwell plotting with Mrs. Norval?
  • While this sentence is no longer in the plot summary, the connection between these two characters is still not clearly explained. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • rephrased and removed battle the of bull run
  • Julian returns from Battle of the Bull Run and the love triangle between Lola, Emma and Julian is introduced. - Who are Julian and Emma? How much time has passed? Some must have, since Lola can now be part of a love triangle. Done
  • I think I was going into too much detail on this one so tried incorporating it with the more significant events.
  • During this time, Lola's dyed skin begins to fade, leaving blotches and making her appear "spotted" and almost infectious as Mrs. Norval describes. - run-on sentence Done
  • Mr. Hackwell exchanges his position as Reverend becomes a major. - What does this mean? Done
  • Rev. resigns his position from the Church and joins the military.
  • I've reworded this a bit. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • They continue plotting. - Eh? What does this mean? Give the reader a hint of what the characters are doing. Done
  • Julian and Mr. Hackwell are simultaneously confined in the hospital for battle injuries - When was Hackwell injured? Done
  • The news of Dr. Norval's death reaches Dr. Norval who immediately returns to New England in order to clear the confusion. - I am just totally confused now. Done
  • the plot is more linear now --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Some of these problems were partially fixed by my copyedit to the plot summary yesterday. However, in making this copyedit, I noticed the same issues: focus on detail and narrative order rather than story arc, and confusing prose. This section must be written for a reader who has not read the book, and Awadewit gives great advice on how to do it. My copyedit doesn't do it, but I hope it points in the right direction. Geometry guy 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Geometry guy, thanks for your copyedit! It gave me more of a direction when I was editing it a few days ago. I tried to summarize the story in a more linear manner. I was wondering if the significance of the events should also be included or should we just leave that for the section on theme. --Nicolecruz (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is much improved, but it still needs some small clarifications:

  • Dr. Norval's return from the southwest is accompanied by a ten-year-old girl, Lola - The first sentence is confusing to a reader who is unfamiliar with the story - Dr. Norval needs to be introduced in some way and an explanation for his trip needs to be given.
indicated as return from geological expedition. Rephrased as "The novel opens with Dr. Norval's return from a geological expedition from southwest, accompanied by a ten-year-old girl, Lola and trunks of supposed geological specimens." --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Puritan Yankee Mrs. Norval is angered when she hears this but quickly reconciles her emotions when he shows her more than a millions worth of stones - "a millions worth" doesn't make sense
  • Dr. Norval's self-exile from New England during the Civil War allows Mrs. Norval to spend Lola's wealth as if it was her own. - Why is he exiling himself?
  • When Dr. Norval is presumed dead, Mr. Hackwell sees this as an opportunity to enter into a clandestine marriage with Mrs. Norval. - This is the first the reader hears of Mr. Hackwell - we need to know something about him.
added adjective "hypocritical minister" --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Mr. Hackwell resigns his position as Reverend and becomes a Major - What is the significance of this event in the narrative? To a reader unfamiliar with the plot, this fact seems unconnected with the rest of the plot summary.
  • Dr. Norval returns to New England after learning that he has been presumed dead. - Is there a dramatic confrontation at this point in the narrative? It seems odd that nothing would happen as a result of a man who was presumed dead returning home!
No dramatic confrontation. Dr. Norval returns and Mr. Hackwell leaves. Mrs. Norval succumbs to a brain fever and is rendered speechless after she hears the news. Dr. Norval takes care of her.
  • Mr. Hackwell takes advantage of the Norval men's lack of supervision of Lola. - I don't understand the connection between this sentence and the rest of the plot summary.
  • Lavinia is given an entire subsection in the "Characters" section but is never mentioned in the plot summary. This raises the question: if she is important enough to be given a subsection in the "Characters" section, why isn't she important enough to mention in the plot summary? Something is amiss here. Either she is not important enough for her own subsection in the "Characters" section or she should be mentioned in the plot summary.

I did a little bit of copyediting on this section as I was reading - don't forget to link key terms for readers who are unfamiliar with American history! Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional feedback on our article. --Nicolecruz (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Characters

Nicole

  • The character descriptions are far too detailed. At times, they repeat the plot summary. The emphasis of the article should not be on explaining the details of the story but rather it should be on explaining what the story means (the themes, for example) and the influence of the story on literature at large. I have identified some problems with the sentences in the character descriptions, but it could be when you rewrite these descriptions that these sentences will be eliminated. The character descriptions should situate the characters within the larger themes of the story.
  • Here is a sample character description of Gregor Samsa from The Metamorphosis which is a good mix of plot and theme: "Gregor Samsa is a traveling salesman who awakens one morning to find himself transformed into a giant insect. Gregor becomes a burden to members of his family, who are forced to care for him in his new physical state. He thus suffers intense feelings of guilt over not being able to provide for them. Eventually rejected by his family and isolated from his capitalistic, industrial society, Gregor ultimately sacrifices his own well-being for the good of his family, starving himself and dying a death of alienation and loneliness." (From Readings on the Metamorphosis by Hayley Haugen, pg. 23)
  • he demands that Mrs. Norval arrange Lola’s room herself - What does "arrange" mean here?  Done
I removed this sentence and replaced it with "he demands that she give Lola a proper furnished room" --Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead, he only takes six percent which seemed fair to him and as he explains this to Lola, she still insists that he take half. - very awkward Done
replaced with "Dr. Norval refuses to accept the half of Lola's immense fortune that her mother had insisted. Instead, he only takes six percent of Lola's inheritance." Lola's insistence is a detail we could do without. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He tells her that he will be telling Julian about everything they have discussed and is instructing him to look after her while he is away. - confusing and hard to follow
  • As a Northern Democrat who has shown sympathies towards the South, he finds that he needs to leave the country. He supports the Union but at the same time sees the hypocrisy that its democratic claim cannot conceal. - The politics of the novel have been totally obscured up until this point, so this claim makes no sense to the reader.
  • This is still the case - the plot summary does not discuss the politics of the novel at all. I would suggest adding a bit more to the plot summary on the political setting of the novel. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In the subsection on Dr. Norval, the plot and thematic elements are poorly intertwined.
  • What could be improved now is the connection between the description of the book and the interpretation offered by the scholars. The interpretation is just sort of tacked on. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Indians insisted they be painted with a special dye that would change the color of their skin from white to black. - The plot summary suggested it was only Lola who was painted - were they both painted?
Yes, they were both painted. I rewrote this sentence. "Dr. Norval explains that Lola and her mother were Spanish captives of the Apache, and that their white skin was dyed black by her captors to hide them from rescuers." Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The analysis of Lola's identity needs to be better integrated into the subsection - the quotes are just a shock the reader right now. They seem plopped into the middle the subsection.
  • Lola is an example of a mestizo position. - Explain to the reader what this is.
  • We still need to explain "mestizo". Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Dr. Norval's wife, a religious woman, strongly believes in the upholding of Yankee Puritan morality. - "New England Puritan", perhaps? Done
  • There are some strangely coded quotes in the "Mrs. Norval" subsection - they are not appearing in the text.
  • The second half of the "Mrs. Norval" subsection is repetitive and confusing - her hypocrisy and lust is not clearly presented, just repeated.
I have edited Mrs. Norval's section extensively. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He and Mrs.Norval plot to take advantage of Lola's immense fortune. - "to take advantage" is vague
  • he manipulates her into carrying out his cynical deeds - "cynical deeds" doesn't make sense Done
  • The pedestal on which Hackwell is placed reveals the influence that a minister holds. - Who places him on a pedestal?
pedestal is not mention at all in the book. I removed this part entirely and focused on Mrs. Norval's role as a mother, how she used Lola' wealth to find suitable matches for them and how the money corrupts her. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He is parodied by Ruiz de Burton to contrast his holy title with the reality of his conduct as his material greed transforms into a strong lustful desire towards Lola. - I can't follow this sentence. Done
  • This sentence still doesn't make sense. How about "Ruiz de Burton parodies..." and then explain what the parody is exactly. Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • he was sent to Europe for schooling until he was called back by his mother for her dislike of foreign things. - What? The readers doesn't know what to make of this.
  • Do we need such detail about Julian and Emma?
No we don't, this was integrated into Mr. Hackwell's scheme to obtain control of the Norval family Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "First Battle of Bulls Run" - is this supposed to mean "first Battle of Bull Run" or "both battles of Bull Run"? Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Lavinia Sprig is an old maid who lives with her sister - Even if the text refers to her as an "old maid", we should not do so. Either quote this or rephrase in more encyclopedic language. Try to write these character descriptions in formal, encyclopedic language rather than in the language of the book.  Done
I've changed it to "unmarried" --Nicolecruz (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Much better. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Upon the realization of the responsibility her service entails, she decides to kill them by using chloroform. - Unclear - she is horror-stricken, perhaps? Does Lavinia kill the patients or the birds? Done
She kills the birds and I indicated this in the section now. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the "Lavinia" paragraph is totally incomprehensible.
  • The personified bird symbolically trades places with Lavinia who ends up being imprisoned in the corruption of the American dream. - You have not explained how she is connected to the American dream at all.
  • This still needs to be explained. Awadewit (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Washington officials ignore her plea, disregarding to wait for several days in order to wait for the president. - What plea? I didn't even know she was waiting to see the president.  Done
plea to free her brother Isaac --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The conversation was made possible only by the assistance of a man, Dr. Norval’s friend, Mr. Sinclair. - Why are we now talking about Sinclair?
  • Lavinia then realizes that her beliefs in being able to voice her opinions equally with men were unrealistic - What? Now we are talking about some sort of feminist theme?
  • This feminist theme still needs to be expanded. Awadewit (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph of the "Lavinia" subsection needs to be better integrated into the discussion of caged birds.
  • I have removed the character description of the Cackles, since they are barely mentioned in the plot summary.
Should I perhaps mention them more in the plot summary? The Cackles are minor characters however Ruiz de Burton uses their names to juxtapose images--Nicolecruz (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Jbmurray can perhaps give you more guidance here. I haven't read the novel. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Cackles will not be added. --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, the balance between the "Plot summary" and the "Characters" has improved dramatically. However, there are still some small clarifications that need to be made, most of which revolve around taking into the account the fact that the reader of this article will not be familiar with the history underpinning this novel or the novel itself (they are coming to this article for that information):

  • Her back story provides the initial impetus for the narrative and introduces its symbolism - It would be best to say what this initial impetus and symbolism is rather than rely on the reader to make the connections.
  • Jesse Alemán sees her situation as symbolic of the 80,000 Mexicans who were "orphaned" in the southwestern U.S. at the end of the Mexican-American War. - We need to identify Aleman for the reader - a small phrase describing her credentials. Also, this sentence needs to be expanded. What does "orphaned" mean - explain this to the reader unfamiliar with this period of history. What happened to these Mexicans who suddenly found themselves as part of the US?
  • Julie Ruiz suggests that "[Lola's] escape from Indian captivity in the Southwest symbolizes the cleansing of Mexican national identity from the 'stain' of U.S. imperialism during the Mexican War". - We need to identify Ruiz for the reader. Also, this claim needs further explanation for the reader unfamiliar with this hitory or the text.
  • The three paragraphs of the "Lola" subsection do not flow well together - they are more like bullet points. Try framing the entire discussion around race and seeing if that helps you unite the subsection. All three paragraphs deal with race in one way or another.
  • Dr. Norval is a prominent figure in New England. His influence and financial support provided positions in Congress for his brother-in-law Isaac and the Cackle brothers. - As this is the first the reader hears of the Cackle brothers, we need to briefly describe them.
  • It is unclear in the "Dr. Norval" section whether he really is a Southern sympathizer - at one point he is described has having "alledged sympathies" and at another he is described as a "Northern Democrat who has shown sympathies for the South".
  • He supports the Union but at the same time sees a hypocrisy that its democratic claim does not conceal. - What hypocrisy? This needs to be explained to the reader.
  • Mattie and Ruth represent the younger generation and Mrs. Norval represents the older, republican generation. - What does this mean, exactly? Why are Mrs. Norval's views on race republican?
  • The extensive details about Lola's racial status in the "Mrs. Norval" section seem more appropriate for the "Themes" section.
  • Mrs. Norval uses it to advance her family's social standing in the hopes of finding wealthier, more suitable matches for her daughters. She therefore embodies the idea of Manifest Destiny. - I don't understand this. "Manifest Destiny" is about the US acquiring land and spreading out all over the continent - how is Mrs. Norval's greed and her daughters' marriages related to this idea?
  • I have deleted the "Julian" subsection, as there was no analysis of his character.
Julian's dismissal from military service represents corruption and his relationship to Lola is significant to the story's racial politics. Julian is considered a major character and I will be adding him back after I do a lottle research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecruz (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • During one of his sermons, he publicly alludes to Dr. Norval. - Why is this important? This fact needs to be tied to some claim or piece of analysis in the "Mr. Hackwell" section.
  • In the "Mr. Hackwell" section, the first and second paragraphs can be combined and revised. We do not need all of the details about opening of the will, etc. and some details are repeated here that are in the plot summary.
  • The information about Beecher in the "Mr. Hackwell" section is confusing - is Mr. Hackwell married? Also, this tidbit it just tacked on to the end of the section. Integrate it or delete it.
  • There is very little analysis of the Mr. Hackwell in the "Mr. Hackwell" section. We need more material from scholars that offers an interpretation of this character and less plot summary.
  • The birds symbolize Lavinia, who ends up being imprisoned in the corrupting influences of the American materialism. - It is unclear what Lavinia's connection to materialism is. This needs to be explained more.
  • Lavinia then realizes that her belief in being able to voice her opinions equally with men is unrealistic. - This is the first we hear of this feminist point of view. This needs to be explained in greater detail.

I have copyedited this section a bit, but more analysis needs to be added to the later sections. Awadewit (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Nicole

  • The "Genre" section needs to be rewritten as a paraphrase, rather than just a quote. Also, it needs to be expanded. Apparently more research needs to be done here.
  • This section still needs a great deal more work. For example, the article should explain what a historical romance is and what about the novel makes it a historical romance. What do you think about combining this section with the "Style" section? Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Style

Anna

  • "Who would Have Thought It? satirizes American politics, an emerging consumerism, and dominant representations of the nation itself, often through a mocking of divisive political discourses and practices of the period set against the backdrop of idealized constructs of domesticity and nationhood." - This needs to be explained to the reader - How does the satire work? Show us some examples that the scholar hightlights. How does Ruiz de Burton "mock divisive political discourses"?
Awadewit, for Irony and Satire, should it be a general overview of how American politics is portrayed in the book? Or should I go into more specifics with examples referring to specific characters as well?--Annac89 (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I would start with a general overview and then offer specific examples that illustrate the general claims. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In the "allegory" section, it is not clear what the organizing allegory of the novel is. Done--Annac89 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Ruiz de Burton shows that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny seems to be built upon hypocrisy, ignorance and most importantly greed above all other noble aspects of American expansion. - Extremely confusing, as this sentence seems to suggest that hypocrisy, ignorance, and greed are noble.  Done

The expansion of this section looks good, but we need to clarify some of the points a bit more for the reader unfamiliar with this material:

  • The preachers, Mr. Hackwell and Mr.Hammerhard, the neighbors, the Cackles, and other political figures in Who Would Have Thought It? are unmasked to break down ideological myths of American political rhetoric by contrasting the expectations of the nation with the reality of their actions. - The section needs to explain the contrast more effectively - it explains the reality of the characters (greed, self-interest, etc.), but it does not explain the contrasting expectations. In doing this, you will make the irony and the satire clearer to the reader. Right now, it is a bit hard to pick out what is specifically satiric in this portrayal, for example.
I have included what the expectations include, I hope this made the contrasting clearer!--Annac89 (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph does not really discuss allegory (generally, a one-to-one symbolic relationship). Does this material really belong in an allegory section?
  • In addition, Mrs.Norval embodies the republican motherhood, a concept of raising children to support the moral beliefs of republicanism - This is not a good description of republican motherhood, as readers will confuse it with the contemporary republican party. You need to indicate what aspects of republican motherhood she embodies.

Again, clarification is the key to improving this section. Awadewit (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Themes

Nicole

  • The "Themes" section is poorly organized.
  • Two of the three sentences in "Class" have more to do with race and identity.
  • Much of the second paragraph of the "Religion" subsection also seems like it belongs in a "Race and identity" section.
Awadewit, I am having trouble with this section. Race, identity, class and religion seem to overlap. How do you think I should go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecruz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
In looking at your research, you have to decide what is the core idea the author is addressing. For example, an author may be discussing both race and class, but the core topic of the essay is about race and the author uses class to complicate their discussion of race. Then you would know that such an essay was primarily about race. Does this make sense? To me, the second paragraph in the "Religion" section seems to be more about race than religion, but only you would really know that since you have read the research. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the "Themes" section is made up of quotation (most of it unattributed in the text). These quotations need to be paraphrased - write this encyclopedia entry in your own words - write it for the general public. Translate the scholarly language into simpler language. Use quotations sparingly. Also, when you do use a quotation, be sure to attribute it in the text.
Be sure that all of the quotations will make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the novel or literary criticism. Awadewit (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced the "Wealth" section is necessary. This material does not seem as important as the rest.
I think wealth can be added to Class Nicolecruz (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This section requires some clarification. If the editors are having trouble understanding the sources, which might be causing some of the problems here, I suggest they consult with Jbmurray, who can help them with scholarship:

  • During the nineteenth cetury, two opposing cultural markers differentiated gente de razon (people of reason) from gente sin razon (people without reason) in Spanish colonial California - What are the two markers? The section goes on to talk about race - what is the other one?
  • Doña Theresa's use of Indian labour and resources pertain to the indigenous exploitation during the Spanish colonization. - How does it pertain? The similarity between Dona Theresa and the Spanish is not clearly explained here.
  • The paradigm of gracias al sacar suggests that Mexicans and Californios can purchase their "whiteness" from the Spanish crown. In Lola's case, the use of Indian labor allows Lola to symbolically purchase her whiteness from Mr. Sinclair, Dr. Norval's Northern banker. - What is gracias al sacar? This needs to be explained to the reader. How does Lola purchase her "whiteness" from Mr. Sinclair? The details of this example are obscured and therefore it does not make much sense.
  • Literary scholar Aleman suggests that Californio colonial mentality is similar to Anglo-American colonialism when it comes to fashioning whiteness by racializing and oppressing Others. - Is this supposed to be the Other?
  • However, "[g]oing from black to white, and seen as Indian and Spanish, Lola passes through various stages of racial identity- black, Indian, brown, 'spotted' white, and finally, 'pure' white. Lola's racial ambiguity thus draws on two competing codes: an Anglo American one that defines race as white or black, and a Spanish/Mexican caste system that recognizes multiple levels of hybrid racial identity." - You need to explain to the reader how this happens in the book. Use the examples that the scholar uses to show the changes, for example.
  • The paragraphs of the "Race" section are not well-connected - they need to flow together. Remember that you don't have to include every point you find in the secondary sources - just the ones that keep recurring.
  • The quote at the end of the first paragraph of the "Religion" section does not really tie in with the paragraph yet. What does savagery have to do with the ideas in this paragraph?
  • The last paragraph of the "Religion" section needs to be paraphrased - it has far too many quotations. Moreover, the paragraph should be expanded. Strict paraphrases of those quotations will not be enough to explain the ideas to a reader unfamiliar with this material.
  • it introduces women from the domestic sphere into political and public spheres - What women enter the public sphere?
  • The novel also parodies mid-nineteenth century family life. Even though Lavinia takes initiative and enters the political realm, for example, she is unable to voice her opinions because she is not taken seriously by the men at the White House. - This is not a parody of family life. Do you have a different example?
  • Although Ruiz de Burton has no problems with patriarchal values, she portrays women smarter, more generous and more action-oriented than they should have been at the time. - This is a strange sentence - "has no problems with" is colloquial and vague and what does "should have been" imply? Do you mean "than they were generally represented"?
  • Her novel critiques the inequality of women but at the same time she focuses on their sensitivity, morality and beauty. - How does the novel do this? Include the evidence from the secondary source.
  • The last quote in the "Gender" section, about male emasculation, needs to be paraphrased and worked in the paragraph seamlessly. Right now, it is just tacked on.

These changes will take some work, as they will require you to reread the sources. Awadewit (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception

Anna

  • The "Reception" section should focus exclusively on the history of the book's reception (the criticism is the basis for the writing the article). So, for example, begin with how the book was reviewed in the nineteenth century. That should be the focus of this section. Follow its fortunes up until the present day. I think that more research will need to be done for this section.
  • Are there no nineteenth-century reactions? Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Currently, the "Reception" section is a bullet-point list in prose. It needs to be written in prose with only a few quotations. The paragraphs need to flow together.
  • A publication of the 'Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Project', it was originally published in 1872. This was a politically volatile time when the Reconstruction push for equal rights was being countered by an increasingly conservative tide. Racial and gender politics were hotly contested as the nation responded to the reality of free blacks and Victoria Woodhill pushed the sexual envelope to the limit with her advocacy of free love." - What was the project? What was Reconstruction? Who was Woodhill? Why is free love relevant? You have to explain the context of these events to the reader.
The Recovering US hispanic Literary Hertiage Project was a cooperative scholarly group created in 1990(consisting of several foundations to back it up) that focussed on recovering Hispanic literature since the 16th century.--Annac89 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The scenes and sections which are clearly racist have put Ruiz de Burton in a complicated position within contemporary Chicana and American literature because she is both the colonized and the colonizer." - You could talk more about the book's influence on contemporary literature, if there was such an influence. At least connect this sentence to the last paragraph more clearly, which discusses the book's rediscovery.
  • Is there any evidence that this book influenced any others? Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Indeed, Ruiz de Burton's adherence to a stringent class structure, which seeks to segregate the Mexican from the Native Indian, only reflects the contradictions within her own efforts to gain equality in the Anglo-American society. Because of these contradictions, some critics have hesitated to consider Ruiz de Burton after reading her works because they inevitably find her upper-class aristocratic viewpoints at times racist and arrogant."  Done
  • These ideas should go in the "Themes" section somewhere. taken out this quote, might be used in themes instead--Annac89 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Reception" section is much improved - it now flows much better and stays focused on the reception of the book. Here are some additional points:

  • After its publication in 1872, Who Would Have Thought It? remained relatively unnoticed for over one hundred years in American literary studies - It remained unnoticed on the American literary scene or in literary studies? These are two different things.
It remained unnoticed in literary studies.--Annac89 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • After its publication in 1872, Who Would Have Thought It? remained relatively unnoticed for over one hundred years in American literary studies, demonstrating the lack of influence that Mexican-Americans had in the making of American history. - Mexican-Americans have influenced American history - do you perhaps mean "American literature" or "classic American literature"?
I meant to say that (according to Jesse Aleman) the lack of influence demonstrates her exclusion from American literary history and more generally, it demonstrates "the marginalization of Mexican Americans in the construction of American history". I will rephrase this to clarify.--Annac89 (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In addition, her interpretation of the loss of Mexico's claim over Northern California demonstrates her discontent with American ideals of the time. - I'm unsure what this means.
  • Caught between her newfound position in the Californian elite and her background as a Californian native, her novel was not welcomed by American literary studies nor Chicana literary studies. - This suggests that her novel was not welcomed by American literary studies or Chicana literary studies in 1872 when the novel was published, but American literary studies and Chicana studies didn't exist then.
  • These scholars describe Ruiz de Burton's work "as an object lesson in the complexities and contradictions of resurrecting literary history". - Can you expand on why the novel is an "object lesson"?

Thanks for your hard work on this! Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

General prose comments
  • All quotations from scholars need to be attributed - the first time a scholar is introduced we use their first and last name and a small description of them such as "Latin American literature scholar". After that we just use their last name.
  • Who Would Have Thought It should be described in the "literary present" whenever possible.
  • This article is underlinked - be sure to link key terms: people, places, and events. See WP:MOSLINKS.
  • I did some copyediting as I was reading. While this article requires extensive copyediting, I wouldn't focus on that right now. I would focus on expanding, rewriting, and cutting sections as needed first. After those tasks are complete, we can work together on the copyediting.

While this review may appear disheartening and harsh (comments I hear from my own students every day!), I feel obliged to point out that if you diligently work through this list, the article will be much better as a result and well on its way to FAC at the end. At the top of the review, I have included a list of the reasons why this article currently fails the GA criteria. If you are only interested in getting the article to GA, you can focus on those things. However, if you are interested in taking the article beyond that, which I believe is entirely possible, I have given you an extensive review which will help you do that. I am putting this article on hold for a week. If you have any questions about my comments, please post them here and I will be more than happy to clarify them. Awadewit (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this very helpful review, Awadewit! Students, as she says... don't be disheartened. You have a roadmap towards GA status, though there is a fair way to go... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, we will use it as a guideline! --Nicolecruz (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you guys talking off-wiki about how to improve the article or something? It seems odd to me that these little checks are just appearing on the review and there is no real conversation going on between the editors. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm contributing on-wiki only here, but reformatted the ticks without checking them. I imagine Anna and Nicole actually talk to each other, but that is not something to be discouraged! Geometry guy 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm just trying to make sure that conversation is going on somewhere - I hope I wasn't discouraging it! Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Anna and I have been talking mostly after class but we now realize the importance of also talking on-wiki. Thanks for the reminder Jbmurray.--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent and ec:) I'm sure that Annac89 and Nicolecruz are talking off-wiki (and no bad thing). But guys, note the importance also of communicating with your reviewers and others on-wiki. Editing on Wikipedia (and collaborative writing in general) very much relies on communication and conversation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding us, we discuss off-wiki quite often but now we will keep in mind to converse on-wiki as well :) --Annac89 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of work has been going into the "Plot summary" section and it looks much better, but don't neglect the other sections! Awadewit (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm perfectly willing to extend the GA "hold" on this article, but I do need to know if the editors are planning on continuing to improve it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Please extend the GA "hold" on the article. I have been working on the plot summary but have now moved onto the lead. I think we need a little more time to tweak things and introduce unadorned quotes. We want to see this article to GA status (and hopefully FA as well) Thank you for providing us an detailed "roadmap" as Jbmurray calls it! --Nicolecruz (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's see where we are after another week, than, shall we? Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I think we will be able accomplish a lot in a week! --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for extending the hold! We definitely need this week to fix up a few of the sections. I am still working on STYLE and will be attending CRITICISM and RECEPTION very soon.! --Annac89 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I checked/am checking over your article for reference issues...and it's not too bad. :) I added a couple of {{fact}} templates to show you the 2 places I saw that needed refs...but overall...
WHOA! It's been awhile since I've looked at this article, and man! You guys are doing a great job; keep it up! =) —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? Some of the most difficult tasks haven't been tackled yet, such as expanding and rewriting the "Genre" and "Reception" sections. If research headway is being made on these areas, perhaps a small update could be posted to the review. Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be writing on genre (and will have to do more research) and Anna will be writing on reception. Nicolecruz (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I have introduced Reception but some research is still needed. I have taken out a quote in reception that should belong in the Themes section and i am currently expanding on why it was unnoticed for 100+ years. Soon(tomorrow) i will write about its republication by Sanchez and Pita and how it was received after the repub..--Annac89 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nicole! The Genre section needs some attention :)so I'll be working on the Genre over the next little while--Annac89 (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I can extend the GA hold for another week, as you are both actively working on the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Nicolecruz (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, despite the work put into this article by the editors during the last month, I am going to have to fail it for GA. Some of the major concerns that I have outlined have still not been addressed, namely the lead, the expansion of the "Genre" section, the misrepresentation of Aleman's article, and other smaller confusing sentences and paragraphs in the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

progress?

Guys, I'm a touch worried... As is verified in our progress reports, the rate of advance of this article is slowing down... from 70 edits in the first period, to 34 and now 27. C'mon, don't give up... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there seems to have been a certain amount of write-write-write on this article, and a certain amount of sleep-sleep-sleep, so perhaps it is time for some cut-cut-cut. I have a feeling that you (Nicole and Anna) might be stuck because of the (presumably incomplete) plot summary. Try slashing it back to a single paragraph: you can always revert if you don't like it. Then see if you can summarize the rest of the plot with the same terseness. I've cut the first two sections down to one to show how you can cut material once you know what you want to say. I may have done this very badly because I have not read any of the sources, so you must feel confident to revert what I have done and do it better.
The section on characters also needs to be reduced substantially. However, before this, it might be a good idea to exercise your ability to paraphrase and precis. The article at present contains very many literal quotes. These are not necessary. Try paraphrasing them, giving references to the source. Then try distilling the essence out of them. Again, I tried this on the first section, but may have done it badly because I have not read any of the sources. See if you can get the idea of what I did, and do it better.
You have made fantastic progress on this article, but I think you haven't completely taken on board the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are boring, right? That does not mean that the article you write should be boring (it will never get featured if it is!) but you need to understand why encyclopedias are generally boring. It is because they state the facts, they don't have a point of view, they do not advance a thesis, and they do not try (deliberately or not) to change the world.
You need to take the material you have found in the sources and present it to the readers not as a term paper, not as an idea, not as thesis, but as knowledge. The first step is to write most of it in your own words. Encyclopedias do not literally quote sources, they cite and/or attribute them. For every quotation, ask yourself (1) "is it important that I use these words" and (2) "is it important that I attribute this comment to that source". In most cases, you don't need to use the words of the source, so paraphrase, and even synthesize source viewpoints where there is agreement. For the second point, if the source is expressing an opinion that other sources disagree with, then attribute it by saying "According to X,..." If the source is just documenting a widely agreed fact then just footnote it.
It isn't easy to do this, so pick an issue and focus on it. Tell me on my talk page what you are trying to do, and I will help. Tell your professor too: he wants to help! Even if you are behind schedule, I will support you all the way. Geometry guy 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've commented further on my talk page in response to your queries. Good luck! Geometry guy 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy- thanks for fixing up the page number in Technical Devices, page xv is correct.--Annac89 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Google books is a marvellous resource. Just to illustrate, I've added something that may be ahead of the times (I got the idea from the young members of the rival team, which is tantamount to industrial espionage, so please don't tell!). Google books allows you to search for page numbers and highlight text, so as long as the particular part of the book is visible, you can make the page number link to the page itself, and even highlight the quote. Your prof may or may not like it and WP:FAC may or may not like it either, but I think it is the ultimate in easy reader verifiability. Just click the page number in the footnote, and you get the quote.
So now, there is even less excuse for a section containing only a long direct quotation: try e.g. quoting a bit of it and paraphrasing the rest, with a linked citation to the full quotation. Geometry guy 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've made this easier to do now with a template, but this is experimental, so don't worry about it too much. However, it does make it easy for readers to check whether a quote from the source supports a statement in the article or not. I've already fixed prose and page references by trying to build this template. Geometry guy 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What? Linking to Google Books?? Oh the infamy! That's actually pretty clever - I haven't seen that before. Consider your idea stolen. Ha ha! EyeSerenetalk 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Fortunately the threat posed to Wikipedia is fairly mild, as the template is still quite hard to use.Infamy? Infamy? They've all got it infamy! Geometry guy 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives needed

I've attempted to rewrite the Lola section to use the source material in a more encyclopedic way. I haven't read the book or the critical sources, so I may have made a mess. I am also no expert on this kind of article, so Awadewit (and Jbm) could well tear my effort to shreds! :-) However, I think they point towards the sorts of changes that Awadewit is asking for in these sections. In particular, I have paraphrased some quotes and attributed them. In the attributions however, we need an adjective which describes the commentators. Is Jesse Alemán a literary critic, social historian, or what? Similarly for the others. Geometry guy 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a lot of research on Lola and will be looking at the changes. When I wrote that section, I don't think I presented a NPOV. I will be working towards that and try to incorporate other sources I've come across. I think the section might be too long in comparison to the rest of the characters. Do you agree? Or does that mean we have to lengthen the rest of the characters? I will get working on the adjectives for the critics and will post them here as I get a hold of them so it will be easily accessible to all of us.--Nicolecruz (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Lola is the driving force behind much of the plot (although I am not sure she is the "protagonist" - Dr. Norval at least shares that role) so it is fair that her description is longer. Look to the critical sources, as well as the novel: whom do they concentrate on? At a guess, I would say that the section on Lavinia is too long, but the section on Mr. Hackwell (the antagonist, together with Mrs. Norval?) is too short. Geometry guy 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response! You raise an interesting point on Lola, one that Jbm mentioned in class. Lola doesn't really do anything but her presence fuels the actions of the people around her. I think you described it perfectly when you reworded it to "back story". I will check again if any of the critics call her the protagonist but they do talk about her extensively. Thank you for clarifying that the character descriptions do not have to be of equal lengths and that their significance in the story should guide the length of description. We'll be expanding on Mr. Hackwell and Mrs. Norval. --Nicolecruz (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Jesse Alemán- Associate Professor of English at the University of New Mexico. "His scholarship bridges the gap between both fields by focusing on the U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1848) as a formative moment for Anglo and Mexican American literary and cultural identities." (UNM)--Nicolecruz (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Need for historical source

I have removed for a second time a citation to Madsen page 106 in support the claim "However, native land-holding elites of northern California had lost a significant portion of their lands overnight and these lands became a part of the expanding American empire." Here is what Madsen p. 106 actually says:

"The extent to which this treaty [of Guadalupe-Hidalgo] was honoured is revealed by the experiences recorded in autobiography and memoir by those who found themselves subject to the radical cultural trauma of being transformed virtually overnight from citizens of a Catholic, Spanish-speaking, newly independent nation to citizens of the Protestant, English-speaking and imperialistic United States.
"Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo's Recuerdos historicos y personales tocante a la alta Calafornia (1875) is one of many personal memoirs collected by the scholar Hubert Howe Bancroft for his monumental History of California (1884-90)... Vallejo belonged to the landholding elite of northern California; he initially supported American annexation... he later lost the bulk of his lands and was reduced to near-penury. He described the reversal of his fortunes as exemplary of the loss of power, prestige and rights of all Californios in what is no longer their home but a part of the expanding American empire."
(She then quotes him.)

In other words, Madsen is referring to a historical source (Bancroft) who is in turn quoting a personal memoir. The interpretation by Madsen of this individual viewpoint is converted in the article into fact, widely held belief, and common experience. Madsen is not a reliable source for such a claim. We really need an historical source. We could try to use Bancroft, available online, but there may be a better more modern source. Geometry guy 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh! sorry for the mixup geometry guy! I am not very good with citations and I thought that I needed to cite the page where it was found. thanks for clearing this up for me! I will try to find a historical source for this. --Annac89 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Time to get good! :-) Actually, you are correct that you should cite the source and page where you found the material. However, you need to make sure that what you write in the article reflects what you found in the source.
In this case, you would have to write something like "Literary scholar Deborah Madsen describes the cultural trauma of the virtually overnight transition from Mexican to U.S. rule; she notes at least one example of an elite landholder who lost a significant proportion of his land in what had become, for him, no longer his home, but part of the expanding American empire." This is not very compelling and the last clause is stretching the source material a bit, which is why we really need a historical source. Bon courage! Geometry guy 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hi, User:Nicolecruz asked me to take a look at the article. You obviously have the skeleton of the article constructed (and I couldn't think of any other sections that should be included), and some sections seem fairly well done. Other sections will require a lot of work. I read part of Awadewit's review above, and her comments are very good and should be addressed. Some of mine will likely duplicate hers. I will be watching this talk page, so please feel free to ask any questions. Please note that I know nothing about this book, and I am very unfamiliar with your sources.

Thank you for entertaining my request! Your comments are insightful and we will use it alongside Awadewit's Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent work in a few places in the characters section attributing opinions to the scholars who gave those. This practice needs to be expanded throughout the article.
  • In the lead, I would switch the thoughts in the first two sentences - the book is much more important for being the first novel written in English by a MExican in the US, not for being published in 1872.
switched. but the lead still needs workNicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a bit awkward "Ruiz de Burton’s life was not typically Chicana, being married to Captain Henry S. Burton after the Mexican–American War" - generally avoid constructs like "being married"
  • "Considering the place of publication" - we weren't actually told before where the book was published
  • Italicize words in foreign languages (like precis aleman)
I meant that I used precis for literary scholar Aleman's words but did not know how to indicate this Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the background section a bit to make it flow more and to ensure that it had the appropriate amount of background information at the appropriate time. Assume that your readers know nothing about this topic, and make sure that the facts flow in a way that makes sense to them.
  • The plot summary needs to be copyedited. The prose is okay, but it does not flow well and the sentences are not always grammatical. For example " when the news of Dr. Norval’s death reaches the doctor himself, Dr. Norval " could be "Dr. Norval returns to New England after learning that he has been assumed dead".

replaced that sentence with yours. thanks! Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Does the plot summary find the right balance of important facts? To me, as someone who knows nothing about the book, there appear to be a lot of details that are obscuring a bit the major themes of the book.
  • Is there any further detail on some of the opinion that is being given? For example, look at the Jesse Alema'n comments in the Lola section - he "sees her situation as symbolic of the eighty thousand Mexicans who were "orphaned" in the southwestern U.S. at the end of the Mexican-American War" - was that expanded on at all in his book?
  • There are several quotations in the Lola section that are not attributed. Generally, when the quotes are long, you should mention the author in the sentence.
  • The character section needs to focus less on the specific actions they took in the book, but on how that impacted the story or what it represents. This is done fairly well in the Lola section, but not quite as well in the Dr. Norval section, and then the Julian section is almost completely a rehash of the plot.
  • This sentence may need to be cited: "She is unable to restrain her infatuation towards Mr.Hackwell and her constant longing to be in his presence blinds her to the point of forgetting her wounded son and lost husband"
removed, has a lot of unnecessary detail. and she believed her husband was dead. i don't think she thought he was lost. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Lavinia is not mentioned in the plot summary, so it is a surprise to see her in the characters section. Perhaps that means she is not a major character and should not get her own section?
I will mention her more in the plot since she is a significant character. Nicolecruz (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The genre section needs to be fleshed out. It cannot contain jsut a quote, and the quote itself must be attributed to someone.
  • The last half of the Irony and satire section needs to be sourced
  • There are also uncited bits (or maybe just one) in Allegory
I've fixed the one citiation in Allegory. THanks so much for the pointers!--Annac89 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In the class section, expand on what "gente de razon " and "gente sin razon" mean - non-Spanish people likely don't know that.
provided direct translation "people with reason" and "people without reason" but I still have to introduce the concepts Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Class section should not be all quotes
I'm working on it!
  • Uncited passages in religion need to be fixed.
  • No idea what this means (and it is uncited): "Cultural whiteness has an arbitrary relationship with society."
These were my words. I will perhaps expand on it Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The wealth section could be expanded quite a bit. It speaks of the use that the Spaniards had for the wealth, but does not touch on the greed that it sparked on the whites
good point! Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gender section needs to be expanded so not just quotes
I'm working on this one too Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did the book regain notice in the 1950s?
  • Has it been published outside the US (translated at all)?
  • The information about the racist viewpoints (in reception), probably needs to be included in the Race themes section
I have taken this quote out of Reception--Annac89 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Any information on how well these have sold?
No =( I was unable to find record sales of this book--Annac89 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • When did people realize that the book was the first in English by a Spanish speaker?

Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicole and Anna's after class conversation

Hi Anna, since class is over *tear* I thought I'd keep an open communication so I created a section for our conversations that normally take place before or after class. Please note that there are two Rivera books. Indicate which one you are quoting because the two are very similar and the text might be considered "inacurate" because of the perceived "typos" if we do not do so and create confusion.

  • Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture New York, NY: New York UP, 2006.

- This is the book I am using

  • Rivera, John-Michael (2004), "Embodying Greater Mexico: María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and the Reconstruction of the Mexican Question", in Smith, Jon; Cohn, Deborah, Look Away! The U.S. South in New World Studies, Durham, NC: Duke Univesity Press, pp. 451-470, ISBN 978-0822333166 .

- I've already returned this book and asked the librarian to put it on hold for you. It is a great source!

--Nicolecruz (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm signing off for tonight. As I was going through the article, I noticed that the spelling of some of the words are inconsistent. I spell things the American way and you use Canadian spelling. But since this assignment is Canadian, I think it would be appropriate to use Canadian spelling. But this is minor in comparison to the improvements we need to do. Perhaps we can address it after we have crossed everything off the checklist.
Oh I forgot to ask, how do you feel about having our conversation here? Would you prefer that we talk in our own talkpages?
--Nicolecruz (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Nicole! I agree, I think that Canadian spelling is more appropriate. I am still researching about Reception and will expand the Irony section to include specific examples from characters in the novel. I'm fine with having our conversations here! It is more convenient to have everything on the Discussion page. We can go through the checklist and add any notes to eachother right here at the bottom! toodles for now :)
--Annac89 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey Anna, where does this quote come from? I was thinking of using it for the section on Class:
"Indeed, Ruiz de Burton's adherence to a stringent class structure, which seeks to segregate the Mexican from the Native Indian, only reflects the contradictions within her own efforts to gain equality in the Anglo-American society. Because of these contradictions, some critics have hesitated to consider Ruiz de Burton after reading her works because they inevitably find her upper-class aristocratic viewpoints at times racist and arrogant."
Could you tell me the page number as well? Thanks Nicolecruz (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Nicole! Hey Nicole, is it from de la Luz Montes, here is the ref. for it

[1] This is found on page 185 --Annac89 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

oops! I didn't realize that it would show up like that. Here is the full info: de la Luz Montes, Amelia (2002), "'See How I Am Received.' Nationalism, Race, and Gender in Who Would Have Thought It?", in Aldama, Arturo J.; Quiñonez, Naomi Helena, Decolonial Voices: Chicana and Chicano Cultural Studies in the 21st Century (page 185)--Annac89 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Anna, I am editing the section on Background and I believe you wrote this sentence :"Despite 10 years of living in Eastern cities, as a Latin-American Catholic, Ruiz de Burton was considered an outsider in Union territory." It gave me the impression that Ruiz de Burton was a Latin-American Catholic instead of a Roman Catholic. Is that what you meant? --Nicolecruz (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on spelling - Generally, it is best to use the spelling most related to the topic. Since the novel is set in the US and written by a woman living in the US, it would be best to use American spelling. If the topic was Canadian, then the spelling should be Canadian. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but not compelling: the author was an outsider in the US, and the novel is an implicit critique of US imperialism during the period. One could argue that the novel was written in 19th century US English, I suppose. However, I'm not sure the case is strong enough ("strong national ties") to deviate from the basic rule, which is to follow the language preference of the first major contributor(s) to the article. That would be Nicole, Anna and Jbm. Of course, they don't have to choose Canadian. Geometry guy 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OMG. Not an ENGVAR dispute! I would suggest not worrying about this at all, since there are so many more substantive issues to deal with in the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, and am disputing nothing! Geometry guy 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GA closure

After reviewing the... reviews, it would seem that this article still has some basic GA issues to resolve (expansion of topics is mostly an FA issue, mention is acceptable under GA). Because the hold has gone on for over seven days (the customary timeframe) and there is a large backlog at GA, I am recommending that this be closed as a Fail for now, and resubmitted for GA review when all the issues on this page have been addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What? Who cares if there is a backlog? It's just a number, man. As long as the reviewer wishes to keep reviewing and helping with this, it should stay open. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the_ed17. This is a decision for the reviewer alone and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of articles listed at GAN. Geometry guy 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi All, I am one of the major contributors to this page and my group has been working tirelessly with Wikipedia editors to improve improve Who Would Have Thought It? We are doing our best to address the concerns in the informal review Awadewit has kindly written for us. She has seen how far along the the article has come and agreed to give us an extension. We do not want the hold to be indefinite. Since this article is primarily being written for our course, we won't be needing a lot more time because the course is already ending next week and our goal is to obtain GA status before then.
Thanks Geometry guy and the_ed17 for your support and quick response!
--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, and good luck! I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia after your course too. ;D —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! All the time and effort put into this article has made it more than just a school assignment! we will keep on improving this.--Annac89 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
As long as the editors as working to improve the article, I see no reason to fail the article, as I have stated in my comments throughout this process. However, as I know that they are working on this for a class, I will have to make a decision in the next week so that their professor knows what grade to give them! I am hoping that they will finish up the necessary work so that I can pass this article in seven days. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote box

I have added a quote box in the "Lola" section. If you like the quote, please add a page number from the edition of the text being used throughout the rest of the article. I only have access to the online edition. Awadewit (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ de la Luz Montes 2002, p. 185
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_Would_Have_Thought_It%3F/Archive_1&oldid=1079351141"