Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The General in His Labyrinth

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:38, 19 April 2008.

The General in His Labyrinth[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because our group has put a huge amount of work into this project. We have already received good article status and have gone through a critical review process since then. We are also still all actively involved and will respond to any comments or suggestions. Co-nom: User:Carlaty, User:Eshiu, User:Jbmurray. Paulleblanc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulleblanc (talk • contribs) 04:52, April 14, 2008

Article stats

Jbmurray 210
Eshiu 170
Carlaty 153
Qp10qp 104
SandyGeorgia 71
Paulleblanc 56
Yomangan 52
Wassupwestcoast 44

As usual, my edit count is inflated by frequent little MoS fixes and ref cleanup, and I added Wikilinks and other Spanish-language help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support All things are fixed, so I support this wholeheartedly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose A good third of the citations are primary source and they are not in the plot summary area where they would be expected. These primary source citations are, however, in the character sections, which makes me weary. I also don't know if various language publication are really needed - such a trend would be awful when documenting works like Harry Potter. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you mean by "makes me weary"? Is it the citations that make you weary, or the character sections? Sorry, I'm confused a little. Wrad (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Number four primarily, and maybe a little of two. Its not a book report, so some criticism and third party view is rather important. We aren't Cliffnotes, after all. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that you actually meant to say "makes me wary": cautious rather than tired. Geometry guy 09:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let's not start a discussion of the word choice. With regard to the citations, they are present in the character section to help differentiate the historical figures from the fictionalized versions. The analysis does not use any primary source citations as far as I'm aware. I also initially suggested removing the publication history, but it does illustrate the book's history outside South America, and it isn't intrusive. Think of it as an appendix if you will. Yomanganitalk 10:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind to Oppose for the following reason - if the sections differentiate between "fiction" and "real" people, and you have only primary sources, then your sections are WP:OR. Please, find third party citations that examine the text and point out how it is different or similar to the real life people. I assumed it was just plot summary, but your statement shows that it is not. Oh, and all of those "Garcias" are primary sources, Yomangani. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed all those littering the analysis. Yomanganitalk 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the "Characters" section adding cites and adjusting wording in order to meet Ottava Rima's objection, which I hope that he/she will now be willing to withdraw. I was able to find references that clearly indicate that Garcia Marquez based the portraits of Bolivar and Manuela Saenz on their historical counterparts. I was not able to find anything similar for Santander and Sucre (probably because it is not something critics are going to bother to say, specifically, since it rather follows from the novel being based on historical characters and events as a whole). What I did in those cases, therefore, was, as Jbmurray has done with Palacio, simply tweaked the wording so that the historical figures can be verified as such from pure history books, and I cited the sentences to Lynch or to Slatta and De Grummond. The readers are now left to deduce that those characters are based on the historical characters of the same name, without our making the synthesis for them. In connection with Awadewit's point below about the "Minor Characters" section, that has now gone (see article talk). Though done for a different reason (superfluity), this measure has had the effect of removing, I think, any other instances of what Ottava Rima objected to. qp10qp (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source for the minor characters and their background, and you will have my support based on good faith on the rest of the additions. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, that was a new version of the section, added yesterday. I have combed through it and most seems to me a straight description of the characters as they appear in the book. I've changed the wording in the last part and added refs to Seymour Menton to add the backing of a secondary source. See also my comment on the talk page. I hope you will now feel able to support. qp10qp (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as co-nominator, and as a significant contributor to the article. But I'd like to point out that the credit goes to my fellow co-nominators: Carlaty, Eshiu, and Paulleblanc. This is a fine piece of work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really "support" it if you are claiming yourself as co-nom? I think you would already be included at the top. Otherwise, it would be silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the explanation for nomination is what I wrote. Why can't he add an independent reason for nomination? Paulleblanc (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I don't believe supporting nomination is the same thing as supporting an article for FA status. I supported nomination, but I don't necessarily support FA status yet because I imagine some valid suggestions will be made during this process that will have to be addressed. So I don't believe it's trivial for Jbmurray to point out that he supports this page recieving FA status. Paulleblanc (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significant contributors should declare their participation in their Support, as Jbmurray did; I look for support independent from significant contributors. I'll post the article stats above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Oppose Was at first a bit worried by the character sections, but they seem appropriate to me after looking closer. Primary sources seem only to be used when directly quoting the text, which seems to be done enough, but not too much. Character sections seem an appropriate place for primary sources in my mind. International listings can stay or go. I'm really indifferent either way and also think that, either way, the article is an FA. Wrad (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Oppose. Rima is right. There are some citation problems in the characters sections. Whenever you say "this person is based on a real historical figure" you need a third-party source. Wrad (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure I understand this objection, and I've just re-read the section at issue. It would help if you could point to specific sentences that you think are of concern. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my complaint, see here. Moved to talk page to avoid clutter on FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the old "likely to be challenged" chestnut. If we said that the characters were based on García Márquez's pets and neighbours and not the Liberator and his contemporaries then, yes, we'd need a third party source. Here, I don't think so. Yomanganitalk 15:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • José Palacios, Bolívar's closest aide-de-camp in the book, a character based on a real historical figure.
  • This is actually the only one I can find. I think it would be simple to fix and worth fixing even if you don't think it would be challenged. Wrad (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken it out. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now I've also added a source on the historical figure José Palacios. Are there any other concerns leading you to oppose the article? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment The publication history would probably benefit by having all the various translations inscribed into a table. Further more, why does the Italian translation have two dates, while none of the others do? Kaiser matias (talk) 05:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I went ahead and added a table for the article, but alas, I'm not so crafty with using tables myself. I left in the second date for the Italian translation and will let the main contributers decide what they want to do with it. Nice article to read, very well-detailed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser matias (talk • contribs) 1:06, April 15, 2008
Re. the Italian translation... the source (which is a García Márquez bibliography) gives two dates. Frankly, I have no idea why.
I don't know how to do tables (whenever I try editing one I almost invariably break it), but personally am open to the idea of putting this info in a table if that is the consensus view. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when I first put this information on the article, I had noticed the two dates for the Italian translation as well. I thought at first that it may have been the only language that has had two published version. But I don't suppose that would make sense given the number of English versions. Would it be better to simply delete the second date for the Italian translation? And I think a table would look good as well, but I am relatively new to Wikipedia and do not know how to do these. Eshiu (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed this one. --jbmurray (talk
  • You've given links for a number of articles that are in JSTOR, etc. Keep in mind that a lot of folks won't be able to access those, and that they really should give a "fee required" note in the reference.
We're aware of this. How best to do this with our citation templates? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Sandy "I don't do Citation". I know how to do it with cite, but you can't mix cite and citation, and no need to switch to the different system now. Maybe someone who speaks "citation" will help. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Cite news offers a "format" parameter to do this, but I couldn't find anything for Citation. BuddingJournalist 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mix up the Cite with the Citation templates, I guess they don't play well together, so... Did you take out the JSTOR links? If so, this becomes a moot point. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the educational wing of the OAS. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. What are you citing to them? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They republished an excerpt from an out-of-print book used to cite the "Numbers and religious symbols" section. If anyone can get hold of the book and cite the page numbers it can be replaced. Yomanganitalk 14:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't, I can probably live with it. I was more worried that someone might consider it some sort of political site, OAS doesn't always have the best rep for political stuff. Yes, the original would be better, of course. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was some discussion of exactly this point on the talkpage. Yomanganitalk 15:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pardon my ignorance. The section Reception says that the book was "relatively poorly received in the United States" but then goes on to say that the critics were fulsome in their praise and that it was in the NYT best sellers' list. Doesn't this constitute a contradiction ? I understand that the 'poverty' was "relative", but the impression that one gets from the section is that the reception was mixed all over the world, and it was relatively better in US of A. Cherian Nair (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to finesse this. I think that the point is that it was a critical success in the US, but generally the public didn't take to it; and the point about the Latin American response was that the book stirred up political controversy, because of its treatment of a revered historical figure. Do my changes help clarify this? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Makes more sense. Cherian Nair (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article is comprehensive, well-written, and appears to be well-researched (I'm no expert in the field, good thing we have a class and their professor working on the article!). All of the images are either in the public domain, covered by a commons license, or have a sufficient fair use rationale. Here are some small suggestions for improvement:
  • Please remove the links to JSTOR, etc. from the bibliography - only people at your university can use them. They are useless to me, for example, even though I have access to JSTOR through my university. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID.
Thanks for the suggestion, I have removed the JSTOR links. Eshiu (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it just me, or do I hear the faint sound of a kitten crying? Oh, well. Eshiu is in charge here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just fully understood the above comments on adding a note that says "Fee required". I would actually rather keep the links and add that note, but is there a way to do it? Perhaps I should restore the links while searching for a way to add the note? Eshiu (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave things like that for now. We're also discussing the issue at the FAC for Mario Vargas Llosa. It'd be nice to get a consensual ruling, but I wouldn't want to hold this FAC up. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the FAC for MVL appears to have moved towards keeping JSTOR links as long as they correspond to cited references. Geometry guy 07:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay perfect, I will begin putting the links back. Thanks for the confirmation, I had also been watching the discussion on MVL. Eshiu (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add a note, then "Subscription required" or "JSTOR subscription required" is better than "Fee required". However, such a note is entirely optional. Geometry guy 20:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest deleting the "Minor characters" paragraph. It doesn't add anything to the article and sounds listy. The reader doesn't remember all of these characters and the article doesn't rely on it.
I agree that there are a lot of minor characters in the novel and we have already selected the ones that tend to reappear in the novel more than once. Though I do agree that some of the minor characters may not be adding much to the article, such as General José María Carreño, but I also feel like characters like Miranda Lyndsay and O'Leary are rather important. But if there is consensus that all the minor characters should be removed, then I will remove them. Eshiu (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see your comment and provisionally removed the section while addressing Ottava Rima's queries about the "Characters" section above. The "Minor Characters" section is now on the talk page. Please put it back into the article if you disagree. Or you could re-add one or two to the remaining "Characters" list, if you think they are major. El Señor Presidente apart, though, it is unusual for an article on a novel to enumerate all the minor characters like this. I think the reason there seem so many in this book is that the General is flashing back through all the major events of his life, and that all these minor characters act as figments of his memory and consciousness—but they do not actually drive the plot, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to split the difference, I have just added back in a reduced version of this subsection. I've also tried to make sure it is less of a list, and more a contribution to the reader's understanding. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new version a lot more. It is much more holistic. Awadewit (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we find out who painted the portrait of Bolivar and give that person credit?

I very much enjoyed reading this article - another MMM novel for my amazon.com wish list! Awadewit (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, beware with that wishlist! This is part of what one of the students said about the course: "I really learned a lot from this course, and was very impressed by the prof, by how he could make some boring texts interesting." Heh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you want me track down the author of the painting; the website is in the internet archive, but the archive.org links are dead right now (we can check tomorrow). If necessary, I can send some e-mails or make some phone calls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Twould be magnificent! Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See article talk page: both Yomangani and I concluded it would be quicker and easier to upload a new image. Elcobbola (talk · contribs) could be very helpful, if you all are nice to him  :-) ... he did image work on Ima Hogg, and understands all the image requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm always nice! I'll go be nice in person...  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Excellent article. But I've just copy-edited the Plot summary section, and was disappointed in the prose in a few places, which isn't on the level of that in the opening (NB a few of my edits were inconsequential, but some were not). Let's be very fussy when we're writing about the work of a great, great writer. I've left inline queries here and there. I hope the rest of the article will be better when I get to it! Tony (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've addressed the specific notes you left inline, for which much thanks. I'll go through the text again tomorrow, in the light of the models you've provided in the section you copy-edited. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Doesn't the MOS subpage on naming require sentence case, not title case, for book titles? Tony (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know Im a bit of a noob, but what does MOS stand for? Carlaty (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get him started. (Only joking.) qp10qp (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, the title is fine. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization, "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from 'lowercase second and subsequent words'."
Carlaty, MOS (or MoS) stands for Manual of Style, Wikipedia's copy-editing Bible of sorts. You should have a look; it is an important page for FACs (where we are now). Waltham, The Duke of 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PPS The second map appears to show current countries ("Columbia" (sic), and a border between it and Panama, whereas on the first, historical map, there is no boundary between the two). I'm surprised to see any boundaries at all on that close-up. Were the internal admin regions of Quito and Venezuela at issue during his journey, having been shown on the first map? Tony (talk) 02:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that during this time all the countries were united under "Gran Colombia". However, after Bolivar resigned, there was constant turmoil and civil wars which eventually caused these regions to separate from one another. So it may have been an issue? Perhaps jbmurray can shed some more light on this topic, he is more familiar with Latin American history then I am. Carlaty (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it'd be more strictly accurate to say that the countries did not yet exist; they had not yet broken off from Gran Colombia. But we see that process start to take place and indeed gather steam in the novel itself. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Yup, the second map shows Panamá, which is a no-no, given the country wasn't created until (off the top of my head) 1909. (Acer, can we get rid of that border?) The internal divisions in the first map are departmental divisions. As Carlaty says, however, what's at issue is the break-up of Gran Colombia, and so the dissolution of Bolívar's dream of unity. As such, these divisions gain importance. Returning to the first map: what I don't know is whether the contemporary border between Colombia and Venezuela still follows the departmental division. Sandy?! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this, haven't been following the map issue, only saw this query now on my morning pass through FAC, and there's only one map in the article now. If there's still a concern, pls ping my talk page and I'll track it down. I don't know if that border changed, and will have to inquire, but there are several Wiki editors we can ping if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are still two, and I fixed the border problem (see below). Yomanganitalk 17:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can the first sentence be a simpler, more general, "The General in His Labyrinth (original Spanish title: El general en su laberinto) is a novel by Colombian writer Gabriel García Márquez."? I couldn't make out right now if by "fictionalised account" you mean novel or short story. Also, the simpler sentence makes everything simpler for the lay reader. indopug (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I fixed this one. Hopefully thats easier to read Carlaty (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Bolivar's full name mentioned in the Characters section? Why does it need to link to Simon Bolivar? indopug (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I really understand your question, but his full name is mentioned in the Characters section because that is his full name and is what he is referred to as (but only once in the novel). The link to Simon Bolivar is because the character of the General is based on, and is Simon Bolivar. Does that answer the question? Eshiu (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was the GA reviewer for this article. It has improved since then, most noticeably the prose is better. Few things:
  • There is two "nineteenth century" and one "19th-century" - it's a small thing but should probably go with one or the other
Thanks again for all your help with GA! They are all "nineteenth century" now. Eshiu (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Historical context section, I think more background on the pre-46 year old Bolívar, rather than Columbus and Bonaparte would be useful.
When we started working on this article, we were planning to put more background about Bolívar's life prior to the time period of the novel. However, we chose not to because we thought too much information may be redundant with the information in the character section (as discussed on the article talk page). Moreover, I think too much information will simply be redundant of the Simón Bolívar wiki page itself. Eshiu (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add in how long he ruled as president before resigning? maclean 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea...Done!!! Carlaty (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the plot summary "...the General's life." - this is the first instance that "General" is used referring to a character. All previous "General"s are part of the book title, and Bolívar is not identified as a General until later. Maybe something in that sentence linking Bolívar with General would be useful. Actually, if Bolívar is only named once in the novel, it might be neat to do the same in the plot summary - name him once in the first sentence and go with General the rest of the way through.
I really like this idea, I hope it is okay if I do change all the references to the character to the General instead. I've also changed the General in the first sentence to his full name. Eshiu (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I liked how the Minor characters were bolded in the GA-version. I don't think I've seen it done that way before, but I did like it. I guess it must have been forbidden by a rule somewhere. Like, debased."[44]
I think the rules don't allow bolding of the Minor characters. I'm not positive, maybe someone with MOS knowledge can help? (I liked the bolding as well.) Eshiu (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wary the Publication history section is going to start a precedent and it will be demanded in other book articles. As a contributor to book articles, I know this info is (currently) incredibly difficult to get reliably and comprehensively. --maclean 05:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're at something of an advantage, because there's a very complete multi-volume bibliography for García Márquez, where there isn't for most contemporary writers. (Though even that is now no doubt somewhat out of date.) On the other hand, frankly the textual history for this book is not so very interesting. I'd be willing to delete this section if that seemed to be the consensus opinion. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer taking these kinds of things on an article-by-article basis. However, WP's high turnover rate turns 'case-by-case' into precedents into expectations into rules as new people come in and assume everything that came before is the norm. No easy answers. maclean 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The article goes above and beyond what the FA criteria requires. --maclean 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second map and the case in the title: Thanks for those responses. Yes, Your Grace, you're quite right about the exemption; however, what gags me is "His" (Jesus? God? The Lord?); "his", like "in", is a grammatical word, unlike the two lexical items that bookend the title. It would look much nicer with "his". But if it's a bore to change the title, don't worry. The second map: it's unfortunate that the Venezuelan and Quito departments are the same colour—along with the modern name for the Columbia department, it gives the impression that during B's journey, the split had already been made, and that the two surrounding departments were by then separate countries in their own right. I'd make them all the same shade of grey, even if the boundaries remain. Tony (talk) 07:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your hesitation about "His." And I recognize that you are happy to leave the title be. But just two points: 1) that this is the capitalization pattern of the English translation (Spanish is of course another matter); 2) I presume the justification is indeed that a semi-deified figure, or rather a man in the very process of deificatoin (even as he suffers and dies in fairly miserable and unbecoming circumstances). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the map (what can I say? It was late when I produced the original and I only had a modern world map as a base). Yomanganitalk 09:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologize. Though if we're talking about Image:TheGeneralinhisLabyrinth_alt.png, I still see Panama, and now notice that we have Bogata rather than Bogotá. Which therefore also needs to be fixed. Apologies! (NB that the accent on the final a there is optional when you're using capitals.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably cached, as I just overwrote the original. I left the accent off the capitalised version intentionally as part of my campaign to undermine the RAE. Fixed that too. Yomanganitalk 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it all written in CanEng? J Murray certainly uses it in his Wiki interview, but here, I wonder out "honor" and other spellings. It would be good to know, since this process is being used for official college assessment, whether the individual contributions of the students will be isolated and marked separately, and whether the learning experience includes the writing of a critique of the reviews here and of the non-student editing contributions to the article, and statements of what the students learned from the others. Tony (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Canadian English, the article probably wants the best of both worlds when it comes to spelling. We'll look again for internal consistency. Your other points are interesting: that's not part of the assignment, but could be in the future, in another iteration. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have made a few tiny edits. The quality of the prose does vary, but as a whole this is a superbly written article. It is enligtening and engaging. There were a few lines I didn't understand:
    • Reportedly fond of women, Bolívar was said to have prematurely aged by the time of his death. - Does being fond of women make you age prematurely age?
      Yes. But I take the blame: poor copyediting. Adjusted. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The novel begins with the name of José Palacios, - does it literally? I haven't read the novel.
      It does. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even though he is usually at the General's side, Palacios often repeats... - is the grammar clumsy here?
      Not the grammar, but clarity of transition. Adjusted. qp10qp (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and congratulations on a exemplary contribution. This will look great on the Main Page. GrahamColmTalk 10:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An outstanding article. I have one or two very minor questions about the text; but I have no hesitation in supporting.
    • "only Cuba and Puerto Rico remained under Spanish rule until the Spanish–American War of 1898"; perhaps this could be rephrased a little -- "only" and "until" don't work well together here. How about just cutting the "until" clause -- is it necessary to mention the future independence of two countries that don't figure in the narrative?
      I do see your point. I took out the "until" clause...Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the last sentence of the historical context section, Bolivar is referred to as the president of Colombia, but in the first paragraph of the plot summary he is called the president of Gran Colombia. Shouldn't the former reference also be to Gran Colombia?
      I changed it to Gran Colombia as well :) Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His unidentified illness has led to his physical deterioration": is that second "his" intentional?
      I this it is. Does it sound awkward??? Carlaty (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A matter of taste, perhaps; I'd probably leave it out. I'm striking this out since it wasn't accidental; up to you if you keep it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The General rides a mule into the last towns on his journey towards death, similar to Christ's entry into Jerusalem": I think "similar" is not given a precise enough noun phrase on which to work. How about "recalling" instead of "similar to"?
    • I don't speak Spanish, but I suspect "autointertexualidad" is a typo for "autointertextualidad".
-- Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the last two. Yomanganitalk 09:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything I spotted has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Disclaimer: Although not particularly involved in this article I've been involved with WP:MMM in general. Just finished reading through the article and I can't think of a single reason to oppose. It's a very good piece of work that definetly deserves FA status. Acer (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • A single, incredibly minor comment: why the comma in the first sentence of the lead? I'm not sure if it's correct or not. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_General_in_His_Labyrinth&oldid=1138473163"