Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mário de Andrade
Mário de Andrade[edit]
Self-nom. Recently went through a very productive peer review (available here, including summary of changes)—thanks to those who commented. I've been working on a number of articles related to the São Paulo "Generation of 1922," of which Mário de Andrade is the central figure. Chick Bowen 02:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak object, and I do mean weak. The only thing I see that needs improvement is that the major works section should probably be turned into prose, rather than simply a list.Everything else looks fantastic, and I'm sure to support given that one improvement. PacknCanes | say something! 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'd love to comply, but I'm not sure what you mean. All I intended for the "Major Works" section was a simple bibliography such as that in H.D. or Robert A. Heinlein (I bring those up only because they're FAs). I didn't call it bibliography only because it's not complete (and a complete bibliography would be difficult to assemble without a great deal of research). Can you be more specific about what a prose section on major works would include? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a personal preference more than anything, but given the precedent I'm going to change my vote and support the nomination. You're right, a complete bibliography does take time (although I think it would be well worth the time here, but it certainly isn't necessary to attain featured status) and the major works list is probably sufficient. My original intent was to get some rationale as to why those works were considered "major", although the more I think about it, that would probably turn the focus off of de Andrade himself and onto the works, which isn't the point of the article. So just ignore that comment...good work, and I'm glad to support it. PacknCanes | say something! 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I moved the section in question further down and renamed it as "Partial bibliography." Chick Bowen 01:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's a personal preference more than anything, but given the precedent I'm going to change my vote and support the nomination. You're right, a complete bibliography does take time (although I think it would be well worth the time here, but it certainly isn't necessary to attain featured status) and the major works list is probably sufficient. My original intent was to get some rationale as to why those works were considered "major", although the more I think about it, that would probably turn the focus off of de Andrade himself and onto the works, which isn't the point of the article. So just ignore that comment...good work, and I'm glad to support it. PacknCanes | say something! 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'd love to comply, but I'm not sure what you mean. All I intended for the "Major Works" section was a simple bibliography such as that in H.D. or Robert A. Heinlein (I bring those up only because they're FAs). I didn't call it bibliography only because it's not complete (and a complete bibliography would be difficult to assemble without a great deal of research). Can you be more specific about what a prose section on major works would include? Thanks. Chick Bowen 14:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Will support when it's fixed. It's a worthy article, but needs a copyedit. I've done the first page or so, and will return to do the rest. As well as correcting the language, I've softened some of the hype and removed the low-value chronological links, which, in any case, were inconsistently treated. (See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Internal links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting for the reasons.) Tony 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits and comments. I rewrote the two sentences in the lead that you had marked, and made them clearer, I hope ("organizer" referred mainly to the Week of Modern Art and Dept. of Culture position mentioned in par. 2, so I took it out). Let me know if there's anything else I should do. Chick Bowen 03:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mild support. I've gone through the rest: please attend to my inline comments. In particular, you might consider providing one or two sentences about his pioneering ethnomusicological (fieldwork) techniques. Specific reference numbers are required, sometimes with and sometimes without mention of the author of the source in the body of the sentence. This is how you increase the credibility of the information. 02:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Thanks particularly for your edits. Your inline comments are useful--I'll work on them tomorrow. Chick Bowen 03:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've taken your advice on all inline comments. I've provided references as links to my "references" section. I also expanded somewhat the field recordings paragraph. I think it's improved. Chick Bowen 01:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. The bibliography is well-organized and representative, even though it is not comprehensive. The snappy and crystal-clear prose, the proper ref/cite footnote formatting, the involved and analytical tone all considerably boost the article's FAC. The literary criticism component of this article is especially appropriate, especially the parsing of the Paulicéia Desvairada. On a more general (superficial) note, I like the well-balanced paragraphs and the placing of the works section between the early and late life sections (this is not always the case in other homologous articles on great poets). Great work. Just a minor note: maybe you should create a "Notes" section (like the one in the George F. Kennan article, and include small excerpts and/or quotations from the referenced materials so that readers do not need to consult those sources directly to authenticate that dovetail with your article's statements. If you don't want do this, it's no big deal at all. Saravask 01:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)