Talk:El Señor Presidente/Archive 1

Images

Could someone add a picture of the book's cover? Perhaps both the Spanish and the English Translation cover? --Mfreud (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Monica, there's an image here: http://www.waveland.com/Titles/Covers/Asturias.gif. This should do for the time being. I'm not sure about copyright issues. So I've asked about that here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Good thought to have a section on characters. It might be an idea, however, to focus on the main ones (Angel Face, Camila, The President, etc.) and then perhaps group the minor ones together. Also, on other sections, again I recommend you look at other articles on books that have FA status: there's a list of them here and here. On the whole, characters don't feature highly. An exception is Uncle Tom's Cabin, where there is indeed a division between major and minor characters. That might be a good model to follow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Resources

This link just got axed as useless, but it's definitely useful to me, so I'm putting it here for the time being. We could add other Spanish-language resources as and when they are useful:

• Arias, Arturo. "El señor Presidente: Amor y sentimentalidad como tropo de la unidad frente a la dictadura"

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem with you putting this here - but bear in mind for the main article space this is an "English" wikipedia and needs to communicate with English speakers. Certainly it needs to talk about issues from all around the globe, so if a translation is forthcoming then add the link to that. Otherwise the researchers can follow the cross wiki link to the Spanish wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Subheadings

Can someone please make the Nobel Prize heading a subheading of Reception & Legacy and maybe explain how I can make subheadings in the table of contents. thanks--Katekonyk (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you use three = signs on either side instead of two it makes subcategories. They are automatically put into the content box that same way--Abarratt (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

We wanted to upload a movie poster from imdb for the latest adaptation of the novel. Is this copyright appropriate, and if so, could someone post it? The link for the poster is as follows: http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/1138015/Ss/1138015/iid_1430660.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eecono (talk • contribs) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, just follow the pattern on this page to explain the copyright and fair use rationale (You should be able to copy and paste the information, for the most part). Wrad (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem and the FA-Team

To assist WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem in its drive to bring this article to Featured status, a number of experienced editors from the FA-Team have volunteered their editing services to the project. To see which editors are watching this article, click here.

You can contact a specific editor directly by leaving a message on their talk page, or more generally by posting a message here. To do this, click the '+' tab at the top of the page and enter a subject title, and your message, in the editing windows that will appear. Don't forget to finish off by typing four tildes (~~~~) to automatically add your signature; you need to be logged in for this to work properly.

We're all really enthusiastic about this project, and looking forward to working with you. All the best, The FA-Team 11:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Our Plan

• Seek out relevent books in both the UBC libraries and the VPL before/over reading break
• Add Headings by following the example of other featrue articles
• expand sections as our sources and research allows
• Complete the Plot Summary
• Add a movie poster cover for the 2007 film adaptation to that section
• Try and submit our article for re-evaluation by the end of Reading Week
• Read, Read, Read... Reference, Reference, Reference... and create a Feature Article!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfreud (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes/References

I am not sure about the formatting of our references so if someone who knows what proper formatting should look like and could help us out that would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!--Mfreud (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A good template for web citations can be found here. Just fill in as many parameters as you can. Wrad (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time and help! I really appreciate it!!! :) --Mfreud (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

In order to combine duplicate refs, type "<ref name = ''xxx''>''type ref info here''</ref>" for the first instance of the ref. For all later references, just type "<ref name = ''xxx''/>" Wrad (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

For those of us helping out who haven't read the book, it would help to have a plot summary. It gives us a basic idea of what the story is about. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add to Wrad's comment, I think a Characters section may also be useful at some point for the main characters, unless they are expanded on as part of the plot. Especially with unnamed characters (such as the zany, the woodcutter etc), it would help a reader to put them into context. EyeSerene^TALK 13:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a part one plot summary and I realize that it is likely far too descriptive and needs to be more analytical. I wanted to get the section started so if anyone can help cut down it down and help cut out whatis too detailed that would be really helpful. Thanks.--Mfreud (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-Evaluation

Is this article still start-class? Is there anyway to have it rated again, just so we can have an idea of the progress we have made and what still needs to be done?--Mfreud (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This really has come on in leaps and bounds. I'll leave comments on the rating to the FA-Team, though personally I wouldn't have a problem reclassifying it as "B" Class. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I'd have with that is that it still doesn't have a complete plot summary. That's a big enough hole to hold me back. Once that's taken care of, I'd consider it one of the better-quality B-class articles. Wrad (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other key sections to add or expand when developing a feature article? Are there any obvious gaps in the development of the article? Any suggestions as the type of research information we should find to really make this article great? Any suggestions would be great! We really appreciate everyone's help with formatting, spelling and article development in general! Thanks so much!! :) --Mfreud (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think as a stylistic issue, the article currently contains too many direct quotations. These could be reworded as coherent prose (still sourced to the same reference), which would improve the article flow. If you're not sure about how to do this, I'd be happy to copyedit a section as an example. EyeSerene^TALK 08:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The article easily qualifies as a B-class. Despite the valid critique above. However these are issues that really only prevent the article rising higher. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree we're now at B-class - thanks Kevin for the reassessment! For the benefit of MMM editors, the next stage in the 'hierarchy' involves Wikipedia's formal assessment processes - specifically the Good article WikiProject. There's no requirement to hit every step on the ladder on the way to Featured status, but I think it might be beneficial to experience the way article assessment works. However, I don't think we're quite ready yet ;) EyeSerene^TALK 11:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! We have a B-Class Article! Thanks!!! And thank-you for all the time and suggestions you have added as well as adding in those publication details. We will work on the rewording and flow of the different sections. Do we need to add more images? Are there any sections missing? I have tried looking at other feature articles and can't quite figure out what sections there are to add. Would it be a good idea just to focus on the flow of the writing and reworking of quotations for now? Thanks again, --Mfreud (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about FA just yet. I'd focus on GA. It's a good stepping stone on the way. Here is a bit of a checklist of things I feel the article needs before applying for GA (It's actually rather close!):

1. Fix the plot synopsis: Make it complete. Also be sure it isn't too long. 900 words is longish. 500-700 is good.
2. Fix all citation needed tags.
3. Have someone from the FA-Team copy-edit the article and do a quick peer review.
4. Apply for GA status.

Wrad (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help us out Ward! We would be rather lost without all of you and your team's help. :) --Mfreud (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Further development

If we're taking the article further, and with much of the content in place, perhaps now's the time to start addressing a few technical issues:

• Article lead This needs to be a summary of, rather than an introduction to, the article. It should mention all the main points covered in the text below (but without much detail, since that's the job of the rest of the article). Often the easiest way to do this is to use paragraph one of the lead for a general overview; I think the existing lead already does this and is a great place to start. Given the article length, I think we could add another one or two paragraphs that essentially follow the order of the article body, summarising each section as they go. There's usually no need to have citations in the lead, because ideally everything will be sourced further down, where it's dealt with more thoroughly.
• Prose A general copyedit to tighten up the prose is always beneficial. I've already mentioned rewriting most of those quotations into the text, and we need to watch out for things like redundant words or phrases, overly-elaborate language, and obviously spelling and grammar. If you need pointers on this, many of the FA-Team have lots of experience in this area.
• Everyone's favourite... the dreaded Manual of Style: this has specific guidance on things like formatting numbers, references, dates, hyphens/dashes, links etc. It's possible to edit Wikipedia for years and still get caught out (and it does change from time to time anyway), so this might be where the FA-Team can be most useful.

It's up to the article editors as to how much (or little) input you want, and when you want it - we could leave things until you've gone as far as you can, and then pick up what you've missed (if anything!), or just chip in as we go. Your call ;) You've done a fantastic job so far, and I really think this article could go all the way. Best regards, EyeSerene^TALK 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Wrad and I posted at about the same time, so I hadn't read his comment above when I wrote this section. I'd missed the point about trimming the plot summary (but then I normally work on Military History articles, so I'll forgive myself this time!) EyeSerene^TALK 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) You have been tons of help and we really appreciate it! We will try to start working on the items you mentioned above over the weekend and I think our goal is to submit the article for peer review by early next week. If you have the time to help or are interested in contributing so that we can get to that GA stage (and hopefully FA stage) please do. We are all new to Wikipedia and are not very well versed in editing sentences, improving prose and formating, please do not hold back! :) If there are any gaps in information just let us know and we will hit the books again so we can fill in the gaps.

Thanks again. -MMM Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.13.70 (talk) 03:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome ;) I've had a bash at the lead, along the lines I mentioned above. Please feel free to make alterations as you see fit. A couple more points (sorry!):

• As I was editing, it occurred to me that perhaps we ought to get the naming in the article consistent. I've used The President in the lead, but the article also uses El Señor Presidente. The guidelines here and here seem to prefer the English version, but I think El Señor Presidente is close enough to the English that most people wouldn't have trouble with it, even if they speak no Spanish. Do you have a preference?
• You may have realised I'm a Brit, and normally work in British English. As the article authors your spelling variant (Canadian English I presume) takes precedence, so I apologise (apologize?) if I accidentally introduce errors into the article. Again, please jump on these if you spot any... :P

All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 19:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope then that it is ok to use "El Señor Presidente" in the article, if it comes under attack during good article review I guess I can go back through the article and change it. As for the spelling, Canadian English doesn't really exist, we use British English spelling in Canada so don't hold back :) --Mfreud (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

reference(s) questions

I hope to go through this article in some detail over the next few days. I'll signal any questions or queries as I go along. Here's a first one...

You have the reference "Smith, Verity (1997). Encyclopedia of Latin American Literature. New York: Routledge." This requires more information. Smith is the *editor* of this book. Also the book will be made up of individual articles, which have their own titles. I suspect that the full reference should look something like this...

Bloggs, Joe (1997). "Miguel Angel Asturias" [or whatever the actual article name is] Encyclopedia of Latin American Literature. Ed. Verity Smith. New York: Routledge: page numbers.

I don't have the title of the article in the encycolpedia, it is pages 76-81 but I will have to go back to the library to double check on the other info. --Katekonyk (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys provide this additional info? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's another reference query. What we have at present is

Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorenz in Hispanic Literature Criticism Vol. One, ed. Jelena Krstovic, Detroit: Gale Research Inc, 1994.

Does the article or chapter have a title? Who is it by? I suspect that the full reference should look something like this...

Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorenz. "Blah." Hispanic Literature Criticism Vol. One. Ed. Jelena Krstovic. Detroit: Gale Research, 1994. page numbers. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I will have to go back to the library to check on the first reference question but for the second one the title of the article is "Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorenz" and it is in a section on Asturias. It does not note an author but instead a different journal it was originally taken from, I think Gunter W. Lorenz published this interview so i guess you could call him the author? The book does not really say. Does that help clarify?--Mfreud (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

For the second ref, would "An interview with Günter W. Lorenz, Diálogo com a América Latina (São Paulo: EPU, 1973) 256-257" be the original source? It's mentioned here (I've been studying too ;) ) EyeSerene^TALK 11:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not the same reference but I must say I am suprised and really greatful that you have been able to help us so much! The introduction looks great, it makes the article look like a real and developed Wikipedia article! Thanks!! When I go to the library tommorow I will look up what the originial article was! --Mfreud (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, I did wonder since the dates didn't quite match. I'll leave the research to the experts in future ;) All I've done in the lead is summarise the content you've created, so I can't really take credit for anything. I'm sure the prose can still be improved too... Anyway, have a great weekend! EyeSerene^TALK 19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take lots of credit for the intro!! It is great, and we really appreciate it. We have started to do some more copyeditting and know that there is still a bunch more to do so please feel free to help out when time permits! Thanks again :)--Katekonyk (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Guys, I'm flattered that you think otherwise, but I rather suspect that as far as wikipedia is concerned my lectures to class don't count as "reliable sources." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is true, not necessarily because lectures are inaccurate, but because no one else can check the source from the outside and verify it. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article to-do list

This article is really shaping up, and (as an outsider unfamiliar with the subject) I'd guess the content is now pretty much in place. The referencing in particular is very thorough, which is great to see. I think we still have a little way to go before it's ready for formal assessment though, GA or otherwise. I think it might help to post a list below of remaining issues. We can then strike them out as they're dealt with. Please feel free to add to the list! EyeSerene^TALK 10:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• General copyedit

• Naming - I commented on this above, but it may have got overlooked in the clutter ;) I think we should be consistent in the naming of the book (either The President or El Señor Presidente). More on this above under Further development.

Done! :) I went through all the sections of the article and switched The President" to El Señor Presidente. I also made sure the title was in italics and had an "ñ" in Señor instead of an "n" --Mfreud (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Plot summary - as Wrad mantioned, we need to roughly halve the length of this section.

The plot summary is complete now but how is the length looking? --Mfreud (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Complete Fedina de Rodas in the Characters section.

Done, she is not really a principle character so I moved her to the other characters section and added a few details. --Mfreud (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reference formatting - the references need tidying up with a consistent format and use of the <ref name=...> markup to remove some of the repetition.

Any help anyone can give us with this would be great as we are not too sure about formatting.--Mfreud (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a crack at this as soon as I get some time. EyeSerene^TALK 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going through the refs... I've added The President as a reference work under References, but it'll need to be the edition used by MMM editors, so I've left off publisher, ISBN etc for you fill in. I've removed the lecture refs (!), and although - per Wrad - we shouldn't be using the book to source its themes, I've left those cites in place for now. They can get booted later when we (hopefully) get other sources. EyeSerene^TALK 15:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've added the Rabassa book to the References section, but it needs publication details, ISBN etc EyeSerene^TALK 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Finished :D I've left one (the "D. L. Shaw The Modern Language Review, Vol. 74, No. 4. (Oct., 1979), pp. 972-974.") as I wasn't sure if this should go into the Referencessection. I should add that I'm a little concerned about the quality of a couple of the refs (4 and 49 in their current positions) - I don't think blogs will get past the reliable sources criterion. Anyway, there's a lot to digest here, so I'll shut up for now ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for doing all that work. We are using this version: 1997, USA, Waveland Press (ISBN 978-0881339512), pub date ? August 1997, paperback (Eng. trans. by Frances Partridge) when referencing direcrtly to the novel. We are going to have to review articles and perhaps find some new ones so that we can cite those themes so it may take a couple days yet as we try to balance out/finish other school related assignmets, but we will get in done hopefully by the end of the week. Thanks again for doing all that work!- MMM team, --Mfreud (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed reference 4 to a more credible source but I dont know if it is cited properly. I included a stable url link to the source in the new reference so hopefully you wouldnt mind making it a proper wikipedia reference? As for 49, I removed it completely as I could not find a more stable reference of this information. Thanks again for all the work you have been doing! --Mfreud (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've wikified that too. It's a much better source - nice find! EyeSerene^TALK 15:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Manual of Style - sweep for MoS compliance

Another problem I'm seeing (and I hate to say this!) is in the Themes section. Most of the section is cited to the book itself. On wikipedia, Themes sections need to be cited to secondary sources. Basically, you can only repeat analysis that has been made by other scholars and which has been published. So a lot of the Themes section will have to be resourced or removed. This is one of the biggest differences between wikipedia and a typical college paper. Wrad (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Uff, that might be a little tricky... I recognize the injunction against "original research," but on the other hand you'd have thought that the book itself constituted a reliable source. OK, we'll have to negotiate this one... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, editors will pounce on that like tigers on a monkey. It's more than fine to quote from the text and cite examples of the theme, but in order to claim it is a theme, it has to also be backed up by secondary sources. Wrad (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wrad - this is the first Novel article I've been involved with (in depth, at least), so your input is invaluable. I'm sure the themes have been covered in secondary sources, so we'll just have to track them down. EyeSerene^TALK 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Include the above list in a a "Pukka" to do list at the top of the talk page. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Kevin! EyeSerene^TALK 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We have taken note that the themes which require proper references are: hope, writing and power (manipulation of language) and dehumanization as they only cite the novel itself. Over the course of the week we will try to locate proper sources for these themes. MMM team, --Mfreud (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added more references to the themes section, particularily to hope and one to manipulation of language to try and have those themes creibly sourced. I may have made a mess of the references section in doing so (again). Should I use the template in the list of references section for the in-text references as well?? Also, does everything mentioned in the Themes section have to have a direct link to a scholarly article or is a couple sources of reference sufficient?

Thanks again, --Mfreud (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've formatted the citations you added. The templates I placed into the References section can be used for in-line cites too, although where a work is given under References it doesn't need to be given again in full in the Footnotes. The author's surname and a page reference is enough to let readers track it down (with maybe additional info if two authors share the same surname!).

I think we still need some more citations for the Reality vs Dream, Detail and Abstraction and Writing and Power sub-sections, but the rest are looking pretty good now. I hope you don't mind, but I've also added {{Fact}} tags to a few statements further up the article that could do with explicit cites. This partly addresses your other question: what we're looking for is for everything that could be challenged, or is controversial, or is a direct quotation, or sounds like editor opinion, to be cited. If you look at the tags I added with this in mind you'll hopefully see why they're there.

You're all making great progress on the article, especially given your other commitments! Pending a copyedit/proofread, I think we're now getting very close to GA standard. Excellent work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget to change the introductory line suggesting that The President is the "most notable" work in the Dictator Novel series, perhaps add that is the most notable work, next to I, The Supreme. (Powars (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powars (talk • contribs) 12:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dontcha worry... it says "one of the most notable." All's well for your article1 --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried, just offering a little help to my friends...(Powars (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

Self referencing to "The President"

Although I can see why this might have slipped by; the self referencing should make mention of the specific edition being referred to as the page numbering will likely only make sense in that one. Any other will have different numbering. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Commented on this above - I don't know which edition was used, so I've left that for the MMM editors. I thought you might pick this up! EyeSerene^TALK 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We used this edition: 1997, USA, Waveland Press (ISBN 978-0881339512), pub date ? August 1997, paperback (Eng. trans. by Frances Partridge) Thanks for all the help cleaning up the references! :) --Mfreud (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

VERY close to GA

I'm just making this section to kind of recap the final steps to GA. All I see now is:

1. Fix the Plot section
2. Get a copyedit.

Great work citing things, by the way! Wrad (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What should we be looking for/doing in a copyedit? Is the FA-Team able to step in for this? We will work on getting the plot section finished/reduced by the end of the weekend! :) --Mfreud (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The FA-team should probably do it since it is best done by someone who hasn't looked at the article yet, but that doesn't mean don't fix writing problems you see along the way yourself! Wrad (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

NB I'd say that the first two sections of the plot synopsis are probably short enough, or close to it. But you do need something on part three! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that section had vanished! Regarding a copyedit, I don't mind taking this on if no-one else steps up, and if Katekonyk, Mfreud, and Eecono will proofread to catch all my mistakes :P However, there are far more experienced FA-Team members than me when it comes to writing featured literature articles, so if no-one objects I'll also ask around. EyeSerene^TALK 17:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've left a message for the rest of the FA-Team. EyeSerene^TALK 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Eecono is planning on adding part three, if she doesnt I will put it in by sunday night or monday and it would be great if anyone (or everyone) available could do a copyedit, the more the better right?! Anything else major that needs to be done before we submit it for GA? --Mfreud (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really... Wrad (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really?? That is actually really exciting, I have never done anything like this before! I am still trying to put more credible references in the themes section so I will continue to look for sources for that then and hopefully we will have it submitted for GA by monday or tuesday at the latest! Thanks for all your help! :D--Mfreud (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the tardiness of the third component of the plot summary. Hopefully now that the section is complete and (hopefully) sufficiently succinct, we can move forward. Eecono (talk) 07:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ready to Submit?

Are we ready?--Mfreud (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go for it! User:Awadewit, one of our resident literature Featured Article geniuses, has offered to go over the prose, although it may be a few days before she can get to it. This needn't stop us nominating for GA though. The nomination page is here; if you need a hand, let me know! EyeSerene^TALK 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys, I submitted it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is exciting!! :) What happens now? Do you know long this process usually takes? How many people need to review the article before it can be listed as a GA? Are other members of the FA team able to review it too?? Are we able to continue working on the article while it is under review or is it better to wait until it has been reviewed and then work on what the review said?--Mfreud (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding (though I'd welcome input from EyeSerene or others) is that 1) we wait for it to be assessed; 2) this takes place whenever someone gets round to it; 3) only one person needs to review it, though they can ask for a second opinion; 4) anybody can assess it so long as they have not worked (significantly) on the article; 5) we can indeed continue to improve it in the meantime. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite right! We're very much aware that you're working to a deadline, so we've notified the rest of the FA-Team that a GA review is needed; if one of us (who, as jbmurray rightly points out, hasn't contributed meaningfully to the article) can assess then we'll be able to shortcut the perpetual GA nomination backlog. If you're interested, the criteria that the article will be assessed against are here. The GA reviewer will post their review on this talk page; the three possible outcomes are:

• Quick-fail - this really only occurs when there are clear problems with copyright or article cleanup, or the article is grossly under-referenced or in a terminal state of flux.
• Hold - where the reviewer believes the article is almost there, but has a few remaining issues to be addressed. Editors are given up to a week to correct these issues before re-review.
• Pass - speaks for itself ;)

As jbmurray says, please don't feel the article is now in limbo! We can carry on working on it. All the best with the nomination; hopefully we can hand out some cool rewards soon ;) EyeSerene^TALK 08:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit comments

I just copyedit some of the plot section and left some comments hidden in the text in confusing places. If you try to edit the plot section you will see them. Wrad (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to alleviate the confusion. Was it sufficient enough or does it still need work? Eecono (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Much improved! Thanks for your work ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Information needed...

...for this reference: "Gerald Martin, Journeys through the Labyrinth: Latin American Fiction in the Twentieth Century. London: Verso, 1989". Can we get an ISBN? EyeSerene^talk 08:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. NB we also need info on the Rabassa... I doubt it exists, at least as a stand-alone book. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thats great! Also:

• "Shaw, D L (Oct., 1979). The Modern Language Review 74 (4)". Is there an article title?

I've tried googling for the Rabassa, and I came to the same conclusion. We may have to find an alternative ref for that bit. EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there is still insufficient info for the article from the Smith encyclopedia. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections! With the Smith, I assume you want those cited to the original sources rather than the encyclopedia? Sorry, I was thinking of the Krstovic! EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the encyclopedia's probably OK (in this case), but there will be a named author and a named article. I mention this above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, the Krstovic still looks a bit suspect, but there we go. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I eventually realised that's what you meant! As for the Krstovic, I think it does too - probably why it was on my mind. As long as a reader can track down the refs though, it should get through GA. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The author of the article in the Encyclopedia edited by Smith is Ron Knightly. I am not sure how to source his name is but he is the name of the author for any sources on pages 76-77, pages 79-81 were written by Lloyd Hughes Davies. Does this help clarify those sources?--Mfreud (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent to have the authors. Are they two separate articles in the Encyclopedia? What are they called? "The President"? We'd need to know that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

They are two separate articles in the same encyclopedia, the first is just "Miguel Angel Asturias 1899-1974" with the subheading Guatemalan Novelist (by Ron Knightly) and the other one is "El Senor Presidente, Novel by Miguel Angel Asturias" (Lloyd Hughes Davis)--Mfreud (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Monica, can you double-check this? This link suggests that the author is Keightley, and the page numbers 76-79. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The link isn't to the same encyclopedia, so I don't think it was the author you are talking about... The encyclopedia with Smith as the editor is a blue encyclopedia... Does this help at all?--Mfreud (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the link again: it has a reference to the Smith encyclopedia, in which the author's name is put as Keightley, rather than Knightly. That's why I ask. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, you asked about the author of the article "Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorenz." At the end of the interview there is a note that the interview was originally published: Miguel Angel Asturias and Gunter W. Lorenz, in an interview, translated by Tom J. Lewis, in Review, No.15, Fall, 1975, pp.5-11 Is this helpful?--Mfreud (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.

Issues preventing promotion

(These issues must be satisfactorily addressed, in the article itself or here, before GA promotion can go ahead)

• I think I know what you are getting at with the section around "did not focus on Guatemalan myths and traditions.", but this could be clearer. In effect this says that by excluding specifically Guatemalan imagery, Asturias was making his book relevant worldwide, therefore making the book "one of his most important works". As an idea, this could be solved by writing: "El Señor Presidente had a wider relevance because it did not focus so heavily on Guatemalan myths and traditions".

I have changed the sentence as you suggested about and agree that is sounds much better and clearer this way! Thanks!--Mfreud (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better phrasing.

• I am well aware of the problems involved in rendering the magical realism of Latin American writing into coherent plot summaries, but more work is needed on the plot section. As examples of loose prose: It is not clear how the President knows of the accusations against Canales. Why kidnap the daughter, what purpose would this serve? Who is Vasquez? Who is de Rodas? What is the Two Step? "The President has become truly invasive in his watch over the populace." appears from nowhere, whose judgement is this? Who is Don Benjamin who appears at the end? It also overuses the word meanwhile. I didn't want to copyedit this as I haven't read the book myself and might misinterpret something. In addition (and I know that what I'm saying is a bit contradictory), the plot summary might have to be shortened. Its OK for GA but FAs have a strict limit on length and I suspect this is over it.

Is it best to explain who Vasquez and Rodas are in the plot summary or should we mention them in a minor characters section? I was under the impression that the reader of this page would have probably already read parts of or would be familiar with the novel... is this incorrect? The Two Step is a bar, Vasquez is one of the many characters present in the novel, he first appears with Genero de Rodas and kills the Zany. He is then imprisoned and finnally shot. Is that enough explanation or should there be more? Genero de Rodas is a friend of Vasquez who witnesses the Zany's death. He has a wife and a baby and is later arrested by the President's police. The last the reader sees of him he signs a document which states contrary to what he has been told it says and the reader never really knows his final fate. don Benjiman is another minor character in the novel, he is a doctor who is under the President's watch and has put in a request to travel abroad. How do you suggest we encorporate this into the plot summary without making it too long. We have been working on shortening the plot summary section but are unsure of how to do this even further without maintaining clarity. We (the MMM team) are really new to Wikipedia and not too familiar with this process or what is required so any (or lots of) advice is greatly appreciated!--Mfreud (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple things: don Benjiman is actually the puppet master in the story, Doctor Barreno is the doctor and I removed him from the plot summary because I did not feel he was vital to understanding the plot as he has such a small role. Furthermore, it is never very clear the role of don Benjiman, as the "puppet master" his importance is definitely left up to reader's interpretation so should we cut him out since we cannot explain him without our own original interpretation? Lastly, you ask how the President knows about the accusations against the two men, well it is never explained to the reader. One can safely assume he is the President so he probably created the accusations or at least knows everything but it is never stated in the book. Therefore, can we really go any further to explain how he knows?--Katekonyk (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true that we can only really assume the reasons for the President's knowledge of the accusations. I tried to work that into the plot summary, but if it's too "un-wikipedia", it can be changed back or otherwise clarified.Eecono (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that a person reading the plot summary has read or even heard of the novel before. In describing people it is not necessary to give a detailed description, but it is important to introduce them. The new introduction to Vasquez is an excellent example of this: whereas before it was just "Vasquez", it is now "Vasquez, a policeman who frequents the Two Step". This is all the information we need to place him and to understand that this is a new character. A couple of new points: "when he learns of the President’s presence at his daughter’s wedding," I thought that this was a lie? It says it was further down the page. "The hate he has been nursing for the President becomes clear to the reader." How does it become clear - is this in the text or is this a judgement? I'm also still not clear on the relevance of Don Benjamin. Otherwise the rewrite is much better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have rephrased the part about General Canaels being informed about the President's presence at Camila's wedding, in fact you are right, the President was not there but falsely promoted the fact that he was in what was most likely a daily newspaper. I removed "The hate he has been nursing for the President becomes clear to the reader" because no direct quote from the novel seemed to fit well there, and without sourcing it I wanted to make sure it was not just a judegement. Is this the correct thing to do? I have also tried to clarify the relevence of Don Benjamin. Is this good or does it need more work/ rephrasing?--Mfreud (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This might be a trivial issue at this point, but I included that bit about Angel Face, because I felt it was important for readers to realize Miguel Angel Face feelings changed, or at least solidified into something definite. I found a direct quote from the book, which states Angel Face's "animosity" towards the President (p 222, around the middle of the page). Maybe "hate" could be construed as an overstatement, but I feel the evidence of his strong feelings is there. Therefore, I don't feel it's a judgment on the part of the reader and I think this idea should be included whether it's quoted directly from the novel or merely paraphrased, because it seems to be a relevant shift in the plot. Eecono (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Angel Face stuff is better, and although the misinformed might read better as "falsely informed" (since it is a deliberate lie, not a misunderstanding), I'm happy with it. I'm afraid I still don't get a sense of who Don Benjamin is - is his first appearance near the end of the novel and he stands for some thing specific, or is he a minor recurring character who sums things up at the end? I think this is probably part of the difficulty involved in explaining magical realism rather than the fault of the editors, but this could be looked at again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the first appearance of Don Benjamin; does that provide enough background for his subsequent appearance in the epilogue synopsis? Eecono (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the word "misinformed" to "falsely informed" for better clarity. --Mfreud (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Both good improvements, much clearer.

• "One example from the novel is the dance of Tohil. In this chapter a Mayan god who demands human sacrifice, glimpses Miguel Angel Face, who is sent on the mission which ends in his death." Is the dance of Tohil the name of the chapter? I'm not sure why this stuff is relevant, so it needs to be more clearly explained (i.e. How does the Mayan God demonstrate "animistic elements"? What does he do?)

I have expanded and hopefully clarified this section. I re-read the chapter and the source of this quote to try and make more sense of what was written. Hopefully it is clear now what is meant by animistic elements. For clarification of the word animisic, wikipedia does a pretty good job at explaining animism and hopefully i did an ok job at explaining animism in The President!! Let me know if this still needs work and I will do my best to further clarify.--Mfreud (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better.

• "and get away with the writer." - What does this mean?

I have searched the page, even used the "find word/phrase" tool on my web browser and can't seem to find it. Has this issue been resolved or no? If not which section was this in?? Where is it?! Thanks--Mfreud (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find it either, consider it done.

It's because I changed it to "how language is manipulated and becomes bigger and more exaggerated." Does that make more sense?--Katekonyk (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that part reads fine now.

• "when the thought of is destroyed" - Is there a word missing here?

• "being disintegrated by the very forces that they themselves spoke." - What does this mean?

I have explained this in the Tyranny and Alienation section. I hope this is clear now, if it is not however feel free to ask further questions! :) --Mfreud (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• "act in accordance to a truth that has many times, not yet been voiced." - How can something not be voiced many times?

I have re-written this sentence so that it hopefully now makes more sense. The gereral meaning was that the characters in the novel have to convince themselves or act according to what the President says happened or will happen. This becomes difficult when they don't know what the President's 'official' version of events is. For example, the beggers who saw the Zany kill Colonel Sonreinte at the beginning of the novel are tortured until they agree that it was General Canles and Abel Carvajal that did in fact kill the Colonel- a "truth" contrieved by the President that they are supposed to act in accordance with, despite seeing with their own eyes a different series of events. Does this make sense? Does the rewording in the section on "Truth" make sense now?--Mfreud (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense now, well done.

• In minor characters there are a couple of self-notes: "[check this too: what are they up to at the end!]" etc. I assume these shouldn't be where they are?

I have removed those, I think one of the editors put that in for us to place citations on this sentance which linked to the place in the book, which I have now done. So, the self-notes have been removed! :)--Mfreud (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• "as such, this Nobel Laurate's style brings out the crisis that modernity in disintegrating long-standing belief systems." Firstly this Nobel Laurate's reads like a publisher's blurb and secondly the sentance appears to me missing at least one word.
• "the praise of the press followed Asturias almost everywhere in the world. The largest sensation of triumph," - again, publisher's blurb.

I think I resolved this issue, please let me know if it needs more work or rewording. Thanks --Mfreud (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Its better, but it could still use work. See the comment immediately below as well.

• Prose in the reception section needs a thorough copyedit. In fact this whole bit might work better as a paragraph of awards and nominations because its talking about the Nobel Prize anyway.

The Awards section has been copyedited by one of the FA team copyeditors, and the recpetion section has been reworked into the Nobel Prize part. Is this a thourough enough copyedit? Im not sure where to go from here or how to rephrase it further, do you have anything in mind that you are looking for that specifically needs more reworking? Is it the worduse that still needs more work? Thanks for all you comments and continued adivice!--Mfreud (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at this too, trying to reword it more neutrally and remove uncited statements. I'm not sure if Nobel Proze should be capitalised or not... EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit) Now that's a Freudian typo if ever I saw one :D EyeSerene^talk 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed (a nobel prize for Wikipedia? Now that would be an achievment!). This whole section is much better, I'm happy with it.

• I get that "Hugo Chávez's democratically elected government" is meant to be ironic, but it doesn't sit well in the sentance.

I think I've fixed this. Tell us what you think. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Better, in fact in explaining it rather than just deleting it as I expected, you improved the section, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

• "iron rule of President Manuel Estrada Cabrera." is a bit colloquial, perhaps "military dictatorship of . . ."

I think this issue has been adressed, at least I cannot see it in the article anymore.--Mfreud (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was in the lead. In any case, it is gone now.

• Should Surrealism and Magical Realism be capitalised?

Just realised that this is in a quote.

• I'm not totally convinced by the layout of the "Major Themes" section, it looks a little listy (but I leave it up to you).

Any suggestions as to what we can do to make it look better?--Mfreud (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a common way to set up "Themes" sections on literature pages. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If some of the subsections could be combined, that would probably be a good idea, but other than that, I don't see a problem. See other literature FAs such as Le Père Goriot, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman. Awadewit | talk 12:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I took a look at the other pages and tried combining a couple of the themes- hopefully it looks a little less listy now! :)--Mfreud (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look better and I submit to Awadewit's superior experience on this issue anyway.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Look at hyphens, I can see a lot of -- style links which I don't think the MoS approves of.
  • These are fixed now. Wrad (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Make sure that all references come after punctuation without a space. I've moved a few but I'm sure I missed some.

Section by Section, I have gone over every citation to make sure there are no spaces, and so to the best of my ability, this issue has been resolved :)--Mfreud (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any more either.

• How were the last two films received?

We have searched as far and wide as we could but there is little to nothing about the second adaptation and comments and articles on the first adaptation just say that Asturias did not want the film to be shown at the film festival but his telegraph arrived too late, the reception of the film itself is not discussed. We are not sure where else to look for this information but we have incorporated everything in English that we could possibly find details on. I realize that the first two films are not discussed in any great length, especially the second one but we are at a bit of a loss as to what we should do given that we can't find sourced material or websites on the first two adaptations. Any thoughts on this?--Mfreud (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Put down what you can source. Other than that, just do what you can. This is not a vital part of the article (compared with plot, reception etc.) and so lack of detail here is not a serious problem at this stage.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is by no means a bad article but it requires a fairly substantial copyedit, particularly with the plot, themes, characters and reception. There is a lot of loose prose, some MoS violations and some places where the article just doesn't make sense, but I am sure a person familiar with the material would be easily able to clean it up without too much trouble.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Many, many thanks for this. I should say there's only one point where I disagree, or don't understand, which is your point about the comment on Chávez: he is indeed democratically elected, so there's no intentional irony there. But perhaps that could be clarified somehow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I know Chavez is democratically elected, but the sentance is discussing his supression of a state run media network for "siding with the opposition". Thus describing him as "democratically elected" comes off as a little ironic given that that book is about a dictator (who are not known for supporting freedom of the press on the whole). Anyway, the point of my comment was: why is it noted that he was democratically elected - what does this information bring to the article and can it be cut out?--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all your helpful comments! One question for now is I am not sure what you mean by "look at hyphens" and can you elaborate on style links that we have that the MoS does not approve of. Being new to wikipedia I am not sure what you mean by that critique. Thanks again.--Katekonyk (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A full MoS-compliance sweep is still on the to-do list; GA assessment only involves certain 'basic' style elements, which is why Jacky commented on this as a suggestion for future development rather than something to urgently address. Parts of the MoS are incredibly prescriptive about article minutiae, such as hyphens (WP:MOSDASH), dates and numbers (WP:MOSDATE), names (WP:MOSNAME) etc. If you feel like going through these, by all means do! Otherwise it may be best to leave this until the article is ready for FA nomination. EyeSerene^talk 08:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked over the MoS page and attempted to make a few minor changes but it is very extensive and overwhelming. I was wondering if there is a more direct way to find out where we violate MoS standards or if it is best to read through each section on the MoS page to find out what we need to fix? --Katekonyk (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New issues

These are just a few fairly minor things I have noticed on a second read through. None are vital at this point, but should be looked at at some stage.

• The images in the background section overlap the text. They should be more spaced out although I'll leave others to decide how this should be done.

Given these a tweak and expanded the captions EyeSerene^talk 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise good work on this issues above so far.

Had another sweep though and I think there are only one or two more things above to be looked at. Once they are done I'll be happy to pass and I give you a full summary of my thoughts on the article when I do. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, I am now happy for this to pass GA now and I want to congratulate all those involved on fast and efficient work which has greatly improved the article in a number of ways. The prose reads much better, images and sections are laid out with more clarity and many other improvements have pushed the article further towards FA standard. As for MoS, that kind of thing is what the FAC process is for, as there are always editors there who understand the difficulties in MoS compliance and will help get well written and well sourced articles over these hurdles. My only real reservation (more regarding the FAC process than the article itself), is that in places this article can look a little like an essay and as this may attract criticism at FAC. Awadewit's notes below are better suited to dealing with this problem than my comments were or could be, so keep this in mind when working through her list. In summary, great job, enjoy the GA plus sign thingy and on to FAC.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job guys! Wrad (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations. FA next! Mike Christie (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations to everybody who worked on this article, great job so far! Acer (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what they said! Great work all, and cheers Jacky! EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested editing priorities

When an article picks up pace, like this one has recently, it can all get a bit overwhelming! Awadewit has now posted her very comprehensive copyedit comments below. However, as we're working to a deadline with the GA hold, I suggest that for now we concentrate on addressing Jacky's GA review. This will help focus our efforts, and has the added benefit that, when we're through the GA assessment, there will be less to do from Awadewit's list, as she and Jacky have highlighted many of the same issues. EyeSerene^talk 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions from Awadewit

What a pleasure to read this article! The editors' hard work has made me decide to purchase this novel and read it - that is the highest praise I can offer - they have made me want to learn even more about the subject. To move on to the actual article itself - I know that the editors are eventually hoping to get it to featured article status, so my comments are going to be extensive: please don't be frightened - I just want to offer a thorough critique now so that later reviews become easier and easer. I've done the featured bit a lot and I tend to think it is easier to do revision before one arrives at FAC. :)

Resolved issues from Awadewit

• The plot summary needs to be more general than it currently is. Beginning with some generalized statements so that the reader knows where the story is going would be particularly helpful. It is not necessary to retell the story in the order it happens.

• We are working on the plot summary but the only thing I am afraid of is that by generalizing it may seem like our own analysis, which I know is a big no no. Any suggestions?--Katekonyk (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Despite what some wikipedia editors say, all plot summaries are interpretations because each person summarizes a book differently - each person thinks different points are important to highlight. However, there is general agreement among other editors that our articles should have plot summaries. Thus the more people that agree on those general statements, the better. It is a tricky part of the article and there is no perfect way to do it. Sometimes writing drafts on a subpage of the article talk page helps work out the kinks. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Be sure that each character and place is introduced in the plot summary so that the reader who hasn't read the book can follow the summary. The summary is primarily for them. I realize that summarizing this book must have been incredibly difficult, but going back to the drawing board several times is sometimes necessary. (Hamlet was surprisingly difficult, too.) You might also try reducing the number of details - try streamlining the summary, if possible.

I looked over the plot summary and it seems at through every character mentioned is introduced. I am under the impression that the plot summary is supposed to be rather short and concise so I didnt want to add too much introduction surrounding every character... what do you think? --Mfreud (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A short phrase explaining who Major Farfan is and who the military figures are aligned with (particularly in Part One) will resolve any remaining ambiguities. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have clarified who Major Farfan is (part two is his first appearance) and also clarified Colonel Sonriente and Canales' loyalties (Part one). I hope this is all clear now... even if it is still in need of a copyedit. Please let me know either way! :) Also, how do i access Wikied from the page i want to edit?--Mfreud (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In the "How to Use It" section of the WikEd page, there are instructions for how to put the program's code in your monobook - it's very simple. It is a little program that runs as part of your preferences. Awadewit (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Epilogue" includes overtly interpretative material from critics. While it is hard not to make a summary interpretative, Wikipedia has tended to stay away from including critical material in summaries.

Has this been resolved now? I think this section has been greatly re-worked since you compiled a helpful list of edits for us so I am just wondering if this section is good now or if you suggest that we give it some more work?--Mfreud (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, statements such as "This is an important episode because it leaves readers with one final impression of life under a dictatorship, demonstrating how one can be reduced to madness in this environment" and "This, according to Lloyd Hughes Davies, 'recalls the opening; but now they strike a more cheerful note and the initial incantation to evil seems far removed from the peaceful evening prayer recited by the mother of the newly released student.'" need to be cut and replaced with less overtly analytical material. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Katekonyk has now gone over the Epilogue and removed those overly analytical quotes/material. How does it look now?--Mfreud (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that takes care of that problem. Now, however, that section is tiny compared to the rest. Hopefully that issue will be resolved with a rewriting of the plot summary. It is out of balance, so to speak. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The epilogue is only three pages long, the other parts are more than 75pages long. It is a vital section to the story but I am confused as to how to go about making the epilogue summary as long at the other parts. Maybe we should just take out the divisions so that the epilogue doesn't look so short? Also, we don't quite know how to go about re-writing the plot summary again, we were under the impression that we have been doing that... any thoughts or further suggestions?--Katekonyk (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see - the short epilogue may have to stay. I don't think removing the subsections would be a good idea, as then there would be a big block of text. As for rewriting the plot summary - more copy editing is in order, but other people can do that who haven't been starting at it day after day. I think it reads much better now. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have placed the "Truth" section as a subsection of "Reality vs. dream", but those two sections could probably be made part of one larger section.

To be honest, I have not been looking forward to fixing these theme sections because it has been such a stuggle to find the appropriate sources to develop them. That said, I began with the first section. I have re-written a few of the sentences in the first paragraph, and tried to cut down on direct quotations but am finding it difficult to do. I think I was able to eliminate one through re-wording and at least cut down on a couple of the others. I don't know if truth is integrated well enough yet, but I did what I could to tie everything together. I also apolagize for my spelling throughout this process, being a literary scholar yourself, it must drive you nuts!!! Thanks again for all of your continued advice!--Mfreud (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better. Copy editing will reduce the rough edges. (By the way, have you tried WikEd? It is a wonderful little tool that makes editing easier - it color codes the box on the screen, for example, so it is easy to distinguish one kind of text from another and checks spelling!) Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Characters" section repeats some ideas of the "Themes" section. I would try to delete the ideas that repeat. For example, a few of the ideas in the second paragraph of "The President" could be moved to the "Writing" part of "Themes" and a few could be deleted. Be sure that the characters are all described analytically, such as the material on The Zany. Character lists that just describe the characters in terms of the plot are not much help (they are kind of like CliffsNotes, actually, and an encyclopedia is not CliffsNotes!).

I have reworked the paragraph on the President but don't know if it is up to wikipedia standards yet. How are the other charter's sections looking? I take it that the Zany is done well enough but what about the others?--Mfreud (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The section needs some copy editing, but the substance is better. Later, we might try to cut down on the President and Zany a bit so that the plot summary and character descriptions don't take up so much of the page, but this is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The coverage of the three films is uneven - prune some the plot summaries and paraphrase some of the quotations. This is the least important section of the article, so make sure it doesn't balloon out of size.

I have cut out the plot summary of the third adaptation so that this section stays the right length in porpotion to its relevence to the president novel.--Mfreud (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but I would still try to paraphrase more of the quotations. Quotations should be used very sparingly - you want the reader to stop and take note of a quotation. That doesn't really happen in this article yet because there are so many of them. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to go work on this further, but it seems someone beat me to it. What do you think about the section now? It looks a little bit small but perhaps that is what it should look like? I don't want to add anything back in if I shouldn't, so I am going to leave it for now, but am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all of this complex editing stuff that has seemed to evolve!--Mfreud (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just the right size and an excellent balance of plot and reception - welcome to the wonderful world of wiki! Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• All critics, scholars, etc. need to be identified by a tag in the prose of the article. For example, "Latin American literature scholar" or "journalist". Readers need a reason to trust the information coming from these sources. This is a recurring issue throughout the article.

I have gone through the entire article section by section to try and resolve this problem. I think all quotes by scholars are introduced now, at least this has been done to the best of my ability! What do you think?--Mfreud (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust you! :) Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would standardized references to "the reader" to "readers" - it avoids the awkward problems of him/her later in the sentence.

I think I have changed all of the references to "the reader" to "readers"- I read over the article and also used the "find" tool to pick up any my eyes may have missed! :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• All quotations need to be introduced. For example, always include the name of the scholar who said the quotation. Sometimes it is not clear if the quotation is from the novel or from a scholar.

In indicating who the quote is said by and identifying the author, the quotes used through the entire page are now introduced, and I tried to make sure that the reader of the pages knows when the quote is from a scene in the book itself. Is this considered done now?--Mfreud (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep! Awadewit (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The novel was started in the 1920s and completed in 1933, but political conditions delayed its publication for a further 13 years. - "political conditions" is a bit vague - describing those conditions in a phrase or two would help the reader unfamiliar with this history

I changed the sentence and took out "political conditions"... it now reads: The novel was started in the 1920s and completed in 1933, but the strict censorship policies of Guatemalan dictatorial governments delayed its publication for a further 13 years Is that better?--Mfreud (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is much more specific - excellent! Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asturias's distinctive use of dream imagery, onomatopoeia, simile, and repetition - repetition of what?

I think this has been clarified.... it is the repition of certain phrases, one of which I included in the intro section just incase a specific example is needed to clarify... if of certain phrases is good enough than feel free to take out the example!--Mfreud (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we need the example or not - let's see what other people think. I like examples, but I am biased since I am a literary scholar myself. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• From this experience Asturias wrote "Los mendigos políticos" (The Political Beggars), the short story which was to be expanded upon and eventually inspire El Señor Presidente. - "expanded into" perhaps?

I dealt with this, I hope. --jbmurray (talk

Expansion, rewriting, reorganization, deletion

• I would suggest paraphrasing a greater number of the quotations from literary critics - try to make them accessible to the lay reader.

• I still think there are far too many quotations. The reader is overwhelmed - quotations should be used to highlight the language of the novel itself or a scholar's excellent turn of phrase. Almost every other sentence in this article is a quotation (outside of the plot summary). Less quotation please! Awadewit (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Layout and illustration

• Infoboxes are optional - I would consider dispensing with this one, as I don't think it adds anything to the article. I would add the essential information into the article. (I tend to think infoboxes are unsightly.) This is a decision that each article's have to make together, however.

• As several of the images are no longer in the article, I would suggest adding quote boxes. See Sarah Trimmer for an example. Awadewit (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that WP:MOS stuff has been put on hold (and rightly so), so I'll leave all of that until later. Again, let me emphasize how much fun I had copy editing this article and how enjoyable it was to learn about this novel. The editors of this article have provided such a valuable service! All of us have learned so much from them! I think I can speak for all of us on the FA-team when I say: Thank you! Awadewit | talk 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Small point: Please do not strike out the comments of other editors on talk pages (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). It is changing someone else's words and considered a breach of online etiquette. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More questions

Or at least one to start off with...

even though the reader sees the world the President has created through the eyes of twelve characters, these are almost always very minor, with only a brief appearance in the novel

I don't see what the cited critic is getting at here. Can someone clarify? I'd have thought that the is that it's the president's appearances that are relatively minor. But that's not what this sentence appears to be saying: who are the twelve characters? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a reference there now and if we need to insert one more the reference is: Himelblau 2002, 109--Mfreud (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a reference, but I don't know exactly what the following means still: Wven though readers see the world the President has created through the eyes of twelve characters, these are almost always very minor, with only a brief appearance in the novel.[17] As such, Himelblau argues that "the novel does not develop the figure of the President as a fictive personage, does not follow the President through a series of actions or diegetic complications that lead to psychological-existential changes or transformations of his character."[17] I think this needs clarifying. It's not the source, but explaining what the source means that's at issue here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue has now been resolved. :)--Mfreud (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, what's there now makes much more sense. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

Yay!! Thanks so much to Jackyd101, but also to everyone who's put so much work into this article. It's been very exciting! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On to Feature Article Status...

Dunno about anyone else, but this talk page was starting to give me vertigo. So I've archived most of the discussion. It seems to me that it would be good to outline some kind of plan as to how to get to Feature Article Status. We have Awadewit's very useful notes above. I see that Mfreud in particular is very conscientiously going through them, making a whole series of improvements. But it might also be useful if someone from the FA-Team perhaps could suggest a To-Do list to orient us now. Then the team could get cracking. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really just say work on Awadewit's suggestions. Wrad (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After that we'll have another look to clean up the rest and then go for it. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We are going to need another copy editing sweep before FAC. Is there someone who can volunteer for that? Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling a lot the next two days but should be able to do a pass by Wednesday evening (CDT) if nobody else gets to it. I may have some spare time tonight, but I may not. Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to do anything today, as there is still some substantial revisions going on. I just wanted to start casting about for a good copy editor. Perhaps in a week or so? Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And please work on MoS issues and better sources (see my note below; partisan copyvio Venezuelan sources, and IMDb, are used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rabassa

This edit reminds me that we still don't have full details on the Rabassa source. I doubt that this is in fact a book, as I haven't managed to find information about such a book anywhere. Can we pin these details down? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I said this under the other comment about this reference, but this essay came from the same book as "The 1967 Prize" essay. So they should share similar publication information. Eecono (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Style vs. Signifigance

Help! I have been going through the list of suggested improvements and I have hit a wall that I can't quite get over. I know there is at times information overlap in the article but I am having a really hard time deciding which information should belong only to signifigance and only to style. As Awadewit noted, almost the entire genre section really belonged in signifigance and some in style. I made that edit this morning and then moved on to try and deal with the fact that much of the signifigance section deals with style. I understand that we need to reduce overlap of the same ideas/information but the problem I have is that much of the literary signifigance of this book is its sytle. This novel's style is what sets it apart from its contemporaries and still today and as such I am at a loss at what to do.

If anyone could help me sort out these two sections that would be greatly appreciated. --Mfreud (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can have a look, but probably not until tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since much of its significance arises from its style, might it help to merge the two sections under one heading? EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to do that? I was not sure if the article needed seperate sections for both or if it was okay to put the two together...?? --Mfreud (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can (within the broad conventions) lay the article out how you like. Every subject is different, and requires treating differently. If it helps to do this go ahead! EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try a "Literary significance and genre" section, but from what I see in the current section, I would suggest at least trying to break it up into "Literary significance" and "Genres". You can go sentence by sentence and figure out what is more related to the long term significance of the book and what is related to a generic discussion of the book. Because genre is such a crucial question for this novel, I think it is imperative that there be a genre section. One of the reasons that I suggested moving the current information is because I wanted to highlight that I don't think there is quite enough information on the genre of the book itself yet. I think another paragraph could be added on magical realism, for example. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I moved some information from the Literary Significance section into a seperate Genres section, which looks at magic realism and the dictator novel. I am still a little concerned with the Literary Significance section because I personally feel like much of the information would sound better in the style section. What does some one else think? What is one looking for in a significance section? Also, one more note, I copied this section from the Literary Significance section because it sounds really awkwards, perhaps some words are missing... "Swanson furthers this assertion by noting Asturias break from past narratives which include precursors such as Domingo Sarmiento's Facundo (1845). In fact, Swanson notes that at the until the time when Asturias broke from narratives they were judged on how adequately they reflected reality.[50]"... I don't have the original sources so I did not want to change anything in case I misinterpreted the authors words. --Katekonyk (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that we discuss the concept of "the new novel" in both the Style and Literary Significance section, this is probably one of those pieces of repeated information. I think we definitely need to choose only one section to put it in and personally think it belongs in the Style section but won't move it until some one else says whether they agree or not. Plus this will leave or Literary Significance section very empty, uh oh.--Katekonyk (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a "Literary significance" section is necessary. However, the genre section must explain the two genres in greater detail - what is a dictator novel? what is magical realism? The section should explain in a few sentences what those genres are and how the novel fits into the genre. Then it can go on to explain the novel's historical contribution to the genre. However, most readers are going to be unfamiliar with the genres, so we must explain them first. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I believe that this article does meet the basic Featured article criteria and is worth a nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do wish you all had addressed the MoS issues first and gotten a peer review; that simplifies the FAC process. The VIO (rethinkvenezuela) is a biased, government propaganda source, and it has a LA Times copyvio -- it is not the kind of source Wiki links to or uses, see WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL. VCrisis.com is not a reliable source. The Chávez text can be better sourced to any of the reliable sources at May 2007 RCTV protests; take your pick. IMDb is not a reliable source; with this number of non-reliable sources, redflags go up, and they will all need to be checked. HTML is the default and is not needed in ciations (it clutters them and is ugly). I hope you'll work with someone knowledgeable like Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to clean up the MoS issues; if I had known before it came to FAC, I would have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it a go. If I stumble, well, I stumble. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is clearly not ready for FAC yet (see my list of comments above and the abundant MOS problems). We, the FA-Team and the wonderfully dedicated editors on this page, have slowly and carefully been working on this article. There is no reason to rush it to FAC. We don't want the first experience these editors have at FAC to be negative and, frankly, we don't want anyone's experience at FAC to be negative. Wassupwestcoast, would you mind withdrawing the nomination until the article's primary editors agree that the article is ready? Mfreud, Katekonyk, and Jbmurray, I also strongly urge you to voice your opinion in favor of withdrawal at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The President (novel). Having been through the FAC process 20 times myself and reviewed many other FACs I know from experience that it is not a good idea to take an unprepared article into FAC. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Wassupwestcoast: both for your enthusiasm, and also for listening to the suggestions that the article is not in fact ready. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray (talk · contribs), my bad...but if nothing else, your project got a quick precis of the problems. Sorry to cause a panic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Need sources

I've removed references to imdb.com and rethinkvenezuela per SandyGeorgia. Need replacement references. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

vcrisis.com is gone now too. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We might have to be walked through much of this. For instance, I'm a little suprised to see that www.imdb.com is not regarded as a legitimate source. vcrisis.com, too, for that matter. (For different reasons.) Replacement sources may be hard to come by. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm far too busy today to help (and having to withdraw a nom always makes my day in terms of the time it takes), but ... IMDb has been visited many times at WP:RSN, only good for basic plot info. VOI, obviously biased propanda source, and a copyvio of LA Times to boot (you can get reliable sources from the other article I gave you, I helped write it, there are plenty). Vcrisis, self-published by ... no expert, to put it politely ... not a reliable neutral source even if it's usually right. More importantly, you should be using the highest quality sources, and there are very good neutral reliable sources analyzing Chavez's shutdown of RCTV, such as the two recent articles which are somewhere in the recent talk page archives of my talk page, access them and search on Chavez if you don't find something adequate in the other article link I provided, but I'm sure there are good sources on that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked and we can use imdb.com as a source. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb which is an old failed policy proposal. It has been inactive and dead for ages (July 2007). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, see multiple discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard; IMDb is built on user-supplied info. Only it's basics are reliable, and you can surely find better sources if you're aspiring to featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For this article, only the 'basics' are being referenced: that the film exists and the director's and major actors’ names. However, I do disagree with the comment about 'multiple discussions'. Talk page chatter does not constitute a consensus-based guideline. As it stands now, I can't find a guideline or policy page that excludes imdb.com outright. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not "talk page chatter", but if you are only using it to discuss plot and other minor issues, it's OK, but there still should be better sources if you're aspiring for featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two articles I mentioned, I don't recall if they discuss the RCTV shutdown or not, and I don't have time to review, but they are two very comprehensive recent articles about dear Hugo:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429.html
• http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

If not, see May 2007 RCTV protests for any number of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the WP:RSN (and its archives), and can't find much consensual discussion about IMDB. It seems to me that it would take a lot of time to find other sources to validate information about release dates and directors, which have just been eliminated with this diff]. We have a university library at our disposal, but I'm not sure how much it has on 1970s or early 1980s Latin American film. Moreover, I'd have thought it was providing the reader with a service to give them a link to IMDB. On the somewhat different point about "biased" sources... When it comes to someone like Chávez, there are no few if any unbiased ones (least of all either the Washington Post or Foreign Affairs!); the point rather is to note where a particular source is coming from. But I will check out the articles you mention. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The President (novel)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

While this article was very briefly at FAC, we had the following comments on its images. I'm reproducing the comments, with my own thoughts. Any advice is most welcome!

• • Image:Asturias.jpg has no fair use rationale for this article (see WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT), which may be moot as image does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding (see NFCC#8). How does an image of the author help us in any way to understand the book? The image is indeed appropriate for the author’s article, but not here.

What images, if any, would significantly contribute to our understanding in this case? If the author's image would not, then frankly I can't think of any. This would make our task easier, of course: we'd just eliminate all the images. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Cabrera.jpg – Licensing information is entirely inadequate. The current tag asserts that the author has released the image into the public domain, yet provides no author or source information. Without this information (User:Puro chapin cannot reasonably be expected to be the author), we cannot be reasonably assured that the license is factual. As Cabrera died in 1923, it is very likely to be in the public domain; this, however, needs to be better researched and, if indeed true, properly tagged.

As per above, we'd simply eliminate this image. I have no idea how to find out the source of this image, though it is used on various other pages on the web.[1] [2] [3] [4] Should it also then be taken off Wikimedia Commons? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Juan jose arevalo1.jpg has no fair use rationale at all (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT) which, again, is moot as image does not appear necessary to facilitate our understanding (NFCC#8). Yes, Arévalo’s liberal government allowed the book to be published; how is his image germane to this information? How does seeing his image significantly contribute to our understanding of the book?

Ditto both comments above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:El senor presidente 3rded.jpg – WP:NFCC#3A requires “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”. What does this image provide above what is already provided by the image in the infobox? Why is the image of another language's cover significant?

Again, what does any image provide to our understanding of the book? I would, however, point out that this is effectively the first edition: it's the first edition of the standard text (revised and corrected by the author himself). If any image deserves to be on this page (and perhaps none does), then this one surely counts.

But as I say, I'd appreciate comments from those who are more familiar with these issues on wikipedia --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that some non-free rationales have been added for these images. I have added one more. Non-free rationales are subjective. Some people demand stricter rationales than others. We'll see when we get to FAC. I am not the best person to ask on this matter because I usually work with free images. However, I noticed Jbmurray's last comment about revision and the third edition. That information should be in the article somewhere - that is crucial. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly... the info's there. It's in the publication history and also in the caption. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really in the article itself, though, and is there any more to say - what kind of corrections and revisions? Should there be a few sentences explaining the changes? See A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for an example of a small "Revision" section. If the corrections aren't important, then I would say leave it in the caption, but if the changes are significant, that information should go in the body of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple of paragraphs about early editions. This is definitely not usually my line of work, but someone with your literary historical interests might be pleased! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

MoS

As a new editor to wikipedia, and an undergraduate student simply trying to create a well-sourced page with links which other people searching for information on this novel can use and see for themselves, i am a little confused as to what I can do to help address all of the critsims over Mos, our images and and imdb links. I understand that wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source but at the end of the day, everything- from published articles to newspaper articles to blogs- all portray someone's opinon. All of the editors working on this page, especially speaking for myself, really value any opinions and suggestions anyone experianced with wikipedia and its many rules can give us. At the same time I am completely lost in the critisms for Mos sweeps and copyediting. It has been noted several times that a Mos sweep for compliance must be done, but who are we supposed to ask to do this? How can we fill in gaps of information when we have searched long and hard and found almost all sources we could (that were credible and not subject to critism) that were in english? I have been working really hard on this page since January and am doing the best I can and trying to make this page something good but I don't know how much more I can personally do to improve Mos. Also, if we delete all of our images, do we then lose GA status because that is one of the stipulations for GA, right?

Any help anyone can give us to help work through the above noted critisms would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time,--Mfreud (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more than fair that you just don't worry about MoS and image rules and leave that to the FA team. That's actually one of the main reasons we created the team. It's just impossible for new people to get the MoS. Wrad (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the question, I think: what can and should the MMM team editors worry about? As Mfreud says, she has worked tirelessly on this article, and the group as a whole has coordinated extremely well to get to this stage. They would like to know what to do next. I'm beginning to get the sense that they (and we) may have hit a wall, especially if the main thing that prevents this article from moving to FA status is MoS compliance. Is the notion that they can achieve featured status too ambitious? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things: As the article is copyedited, watch it and answer questions. Sometimes copyeditors can get the meaning confused. Do the stuff Awadewit and other reviewers point out. At least everything that you can. Lastly, while all sources are biased, FAs should use only the best sources available. Peer reviewed scholarly articles will thus be more respected than blogs, which have no review system. Make all of your sources the very best you can in this regard. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all of the MOS Quotation and MOS Dash issues I could find. I may be willfully blind, but I don't see a lot of other MOS issues right now. There are a few sourcing issues (marked with citation needed tags) and copyediting is needed, but this article is in pretty good shape. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions: I assume we are going with Canadian English here? Are we using the serial comma or not? We also seem to be hyphenating more than I am used to (e.g., "re-affirmed") - is this part of Canadian English? (I just want everything to be consistent!) Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I for one am not at all sure what Canadian English is... FWIW, I'm a Brit who tries to adjust to American customs. But I suppose that kind of sums up Canada, too!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a chart of national varieties of English to help us out. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

OK, a couple of thoughts on sources:

• There are two "citation needed" flags currently in the "Background" section. Both deal with the downfall of Cabrera Estrada. Here's a possible source, which will could be consulted: Kit, Wade. "The fall of Guatemalan dictator Manuel Estrada Cabrera: US pressure or national opposition?" (Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies = Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes, Can. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud., 15:29, 1990, p. 105-127 0826-3663).

• More generally, for Guatemalan history, there are the following possibilities: Jim Handy, Gift of the devil : a history of Guatemala (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1984); Greg Grandin, The last colonial massacre: Latin America in the Cold War (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2004), though mostly this is about the post-war period. I can see very little specifically on the early twentieth century in the country. But perhaps further research would uncover more.

• I suggest that all citations to "Miguel Angel Asturias: 1899-1974: Writer, Statesman Biography" (there are currently four of them) should be replaced.

Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see no blogs cited in the article. The copyvio/bias problem that SandyGeorgia noted concerned an LA Times article reproduced by a pro-Chávez website. That article is no longer available on the LA Times website. We could check it on microfiche: Jones, Bart (2005-05-30). Hugo Chavez Versus RCTV: Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup. Los Angeles Times.

If there are any other issues with sources, it would be good to hear them. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more issues:

• Full details (i.e. page numbers) are required for this source: Martin, Gerald. "Miguel Angel Asturias: El Señor Presidente" Landmarks in Modern Latin American Fiction. Ed. Philip Swanson. London: Routledge, 1990.  ??–??.

I think I just gave this source back to you today so I cannot look up the page number!--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope! You gave me back Latin American Fiction: A Short Introduction. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have just looked it up on the library website and it looks Koerner carries a copy of this book. I will go find it in the stacks on Thursday, then check the missing page number information, hopefully no one signs it out before then! Oh and the ISBN number listed on the website is: 0415019966 --Mfreud (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After looking myself and consulting a librarian, it seems as though someone has moved the book as its status is still available.... --Mfreud (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full details (i.e. place, publisher, and date) are required for this source: Rabassa, Gregory. The Life and Works of Miguel Ángel Asturias.

Again, I didn't ever use this source so I am at a loss to provide the details on it...--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use this source but have talked to Elyse about the details of it...--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was also included in the same source as "The 1967 Prize," so I'd assume they can be copied over? Eecono (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. I've copied the information that we have about "The 1967 Prize." But now we need the page numbers for this article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Since I wasn't able to physically get to the book over easter (I forgot the library would be closed for a majority of the time), and since the internet doesn't seem to be producing the needed information, I will call the library and see if they can provide the page numbers. Eecono (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good plan!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full details (i.e. page numbers) are required for this source: Strömberg, Kjell. "The 1967 Prize." Miguel Angel Asturias, Jacinto Benavente, Henri Bergson: Nobel Prize Library. New York: Gregory, 1971.  ???–???.

Same with this source here....--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the page number, I thought I included it in my first (limited) reference, and when I look at the reference now, it seems to still have that page number...am I misreading something? Eecono (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You've got three citations, all to page 174. But to fill out the "References" section (down the bottom), we need to know the page number of the first page, and the last page. That's why I put the question marks there: ???-???. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• When an author has more than one item in the References, it is not always clear in the Notes which is being cited. This issue affects citations referring to Himelblau and Martin.

For the Himelblau references, I have gone through the article and notes in the citation the year of the Himelblau reference the citation is referring to. Does this help? Also, For the Martain references, everything cited "Swanson" is from the 1990 book on the references list under Martian and everything else is from the other Martain source on the references list. Except for note 53, all other swanson (or Martain) references now read: Swanson 1990, pg# Is this clear now? Or am I missing something?--Mfreud (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm getting confused... The notes refer to two books by Swanson: Swanson 2005 (which is Latin American Fiction: A Short Introduction) and Swanson 1990. But note that only the first of these is in the "References" under Swanson. So are those other references in *fact* to Martin's essay in Swanson's collection? It has to be clear who you are citing. If you are citing Martin, you should say so: references to his article in the Swanson book should be cited "Martin 1990" (while references to his own book should be "Martin 1989"), so the reader knows which book is which and to whom you are referring. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My head hurts! Ok, ao, just to clarify, the Swanson references are from the book you lent me, and I guess I was confused because as you just noted, that is the 2005 one.... almost all the references that I got from that book cite pages 53,54, and 55. I don't know where the other Swanson reference came from or who used it... I actually thought you maybe added that one but I am guessing not.... that said, I don't really know how to fix it. What can I do to help with all the Swanson and Martian references?--Mfreud (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I just changed all of these, on the assumption that all references to "Swanson" with a page range in the 50s were in fact to Gerald Martin's article in Swanson's 1990 collection. This leaves us with the impression at least that Swanson's 2005 book is never cited. Is this the case? If so, we should delete it. Can you double check?

Incidentally, guys, I hope you're learning how much time is saved by being accurate with references and the like the first time around! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's sort these out! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Krstovic

• The Krstovic referencing is inconsistent. Is it one article that is being cited? The final reference is also unclear, referring only to the editing book, rather than to individual essays.

I also have no idea where this source is from... I can do what I can to locate it but it might be easier to find another source for this material?? If I had used the book I could help but I don't know what this source is! sorry!--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, who has the book? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I thought it was Eecono... but maybe not. ?? ... Ok, so I just looked it up on the library search engine and the library has a copy of this book too in the stacks, and it is not signed out. I will also go and find this book on thursday and get this reference stuff sorted out, finnally I hope!--Mfreud (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More on Krstovic: this would seem to be a collection of reprinted essays. It should be made clear which essays are being cited, i.e. each one should have a separate line under "References." Moreover, as it appears that these are shortened essays, it would be better if possible to cite (and so get hold of) the original publications wherever possible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so im crossing my fingers that we can hopefully begin to sort out this source once and for all. First of all, I am fully culpable for the mis-referencing... the author name Krstovic did not stick in my mind and forgot I had used the source.... Anyways, here's the scoop:

In the Krstovic source there is a whole section on Asturias. In this Asturias section is a collection of published essays in relation to Asturias and El Senor Presidente. They are divided by the name of the author who wrote them, that is why right now the titles sometimes read "Walker" or "Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorez." These are the titles for the artiles in this encyclopeida. At the end of each essay however, the full citation of where the article/essay was originally published is listed. Unfortunately, UBC does not have ANY of these online and only a few in print holdings... I looked because I guessed these articles would be easier to cite if we have the original article and orginial page numbers but this proved pretty difficult... so here is all the information I can give you on the different essays in this source:

• "Miguel Angel Asturias with Gunter W. Lorez (interview date 1970)" pg159-163 in Krstovic souce. Originally published in Review, No.15, Fall 1975, pp5-11 and the interview was translated by Tom J. Lewis
• "John Walker", pg 163-165 in Krstovic source. Originally published as: "The Role of the Idiot in Asturias' El Senor Presidente" Romance Notes, Vol XII (1) Autum, 1970. pp62-67
• "Ariel Dorfman", pp150-159. Originally published as: Ariel Dorfman, "Men of Maize: Myth as Time and Language" in Some Write to The Future: Essays on Contemporary Latin American Fiction translated by Ariel Dorfman and George Shivers, Duke University Press 1991, pp1-24

I hope this is helpful in sorting out these issues. The only source I could find in Print Holdings is the John Walker one so I will go on a hunt for that if you think it would make referencing easier with the original source and page numbers. Just let me know!--Mfreud (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, this makes much more sense. We need to make it clearer in the article. (I don't have time right now, but can come back to this.) Do get the original of the Walker if you can. Drat that we don't have the Dorfman or the Lorenz. But there we go. Good work. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Update. As I've said elsewhere, the UBC library does indeed have the Dorfman. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, we've almost got this Krstovic stuff down. At last! Yay! I've fixed the references so it's clear who's writing (Walker, Dorfman, or Lorenz interviewing Asturias). This is now clear both in the inline citations (the footnotes) and in the references themselves. I've also provided the details of the original articles. Ideally we'd get hold of those ourselves. You said you'd track down the Walker. NB that UBC library has the Dorfman too: it's at Koerner's, call number PQ7082.N7 D67 1991. But it's out at the moment. You'll have to recall it. I hope, by the way, that you see why all this matters. We need to attribute the quotations properly, to the right people, and ensure that others can follow the trail back to the sources.

There's just one problem left with Krstovic, and it's in this paragraph: "The first award Asturias received for El Señor Presidente was the Prix du Meilleur Roman Étranger in 1952.[59] In an interview with Gunter Lorenz, Asturias informed his readers that they "should be conscious of the fact that ... [my] books constitute the response to this living and changing reality. One must see not only with the eyes. One must penetrate this green world, this land of tigers and eruptions. One must familiarize oneself with this world of telluric struggles, with this world in which the struggle for survival still goes on".[59]" Both these footnotes lead us to "Krstovic, "Miguel Asturias", 149." The two problems are 1. the second quotation in fact looks as though it comes from the Lorenz interview, but that's in pages 159-163, so it doesn't computer; 2. you seem to be quoting Krstovic herself (is that true?), in which case we need a reference specifically to her essay within her own book.

I hope that all makes sense. I think we've almost knocked this one on the head. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to go back and check this until Tuesday when I am on campus but I will definetly do so then! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfreud (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The information about the Prix du Meilleur Roman Étranger award comes from page 149. On page 148 there is "Miguel Angel Asturias, 1899-1974", then just below is a section titled Introduction. This introduction section is from pages148-149 and does not have any noted author. This is perhaps Krstovic herself then, but the title of this section is Miguel Asturias, Introduction... that's why the reference leads you to this. The second quote does mention the interview with Gunter Lorez but this particular quote from Asturias is only mentioned in this introduction part and not again in the interview with Lorenz. So, the citation is correct, even though it talks about the interview. Does that help clarify?--Mfreud (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does clarify. I've fixed the reference and citations accordingly. I hope you can see how and why what we have now is much more logical and helpful to the reader than what we had before. Thanks for checking on this! It would be better if we could get the original essays by Dorfman and Walker. But at least what we have now makes sense.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have never cited an encyclopedia before because I did not realize that the editor of the book and the page number where the information was found in the encyclopedia was not enough. I just assumed that if I got the information from a specific encyclopedia and cited that, someone could look up in that encyclopedia very easily the page number I was quoting from, if I knew that I needed all of that other information I would have written down all this information to begin with, but I am glad that this is almost all sorted out. I think katekonyk was able to find those two sources and has photocopied them as you cannot take them out of the library. Hopefully we will have those added soon. Are there any other source/referencing issues that need to be adressed or that I can fix?--Mfreud (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just the case of an Encyclopedia, but of any edited book: you need to give full details of the content. Otherwise it can appear (as earlier it did here) that the editor has written the whole thing. But in fact editors might always want to be associated with their contributor's work and (more to the point) contributors won't want to have the editors steal their glory! Plus readers should always want to know who exactly is presenting the material they're reading. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have the necessary sources that we are missing. I apologize, I have been really busy and have not been able to update the information, but by tonight or tomorrow afternoon I will fix whatever I can from the sources that I got from the library.--Katekonyk (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the page numbers for the John Walker source in the Zany section but there is one quote that I could not find in the article: The Zany, who "looked like a corpse when he was asleep" and had eyes that "saw nothing, felt nothing" is critical to establishing the tone of the novel and triggering the novel's action.[23] I believe Mfreud read this article so perhaps she can check her notes to make sure it is from this source. The only other possibility is that it's from the novel, The President, but right now I do not have a proper page number. --Katekonyk (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Those quotes I think are from the novel itself... --Mfreud (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now checked the Dorfman reference, I recalled the book and have put in the right page numbers throughout the article and also fixed the reference to include the proper isbn number.--Mfreud (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

As a stepping stone to FA, I've put in a WP:Peer review request. Should anyone reply, their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/The President (novel)/archive1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to the MMM members, a Peer Review ends whenever you are ready for it to. If you don't get many comments or feel the article is ready to go to FA, you can close the Peer Review and (re)nominate the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

FA Candidacy??

OK, FA-Team... I know that there are a couple of issues still remaining. But work has continued on this article, and of course during the review process there'll be more revision. I wonder if we're ready (psychologically, too) to put this in for FAC now? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But your taking a Wiki-break for the weekend! Or, was that the plan all along :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. NB however, that I realize we still have four references to this source: Miguel Angel Asturias: 1899–1974: Writer, Statesman Biography. Hispanic Biographies Vol 3. biography.jrank.org. Retrieved on 2008-03-04. These should be replaced. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw that these four references were all in the same section (on the dictator novel genre), and so re-wrote that section to eliminate them. They weren't doing much anyhow. That section could, however, do with some work to make it more focussed on the question of the novel's contribution to the genre as a whole, which is ostensibly the topic there. We could work with our sources a little better: the Swanson, for instance, isn't really about genre but about anti-realist style. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there an author for "The Role of the Idiot in Asturias' El Senor Presidente" listed at the bottom of the References? I think if you get that cleared up and the website above replaced then you should be ready for an attempt. It may very well get some comments and recommendations for changes, but that's normal!!! If you guys haven't already, before you nominate go to the list of Featured article candidates and browse a few of the nominations. That will give you an idea of the types of comments you're likely to see. Karanacs (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is, it was listed there when I went to add it, for some reason it chose to remain hidden, in any case it is fixed now!--Mfreud (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As for FAC, i'm not sure that we are ready... If the FA-team thinks its a good idea to go ahead with it then i am definetly up for it but personally I am a little worried about the state of the Literary Signifigance section. The Style and Signifigance sections need more work, perhaps not in more sources but at least in deciding what information belongs in each one. Also, Andewit has suggested that we re-create a genre section that will talk about the dictator novel and magic realism in El Senor Presidente. Most of the genre information is currently in the signifigance section. If anyone is able to help sort out which information belongs where and help us with one more copyedit I think I would feel comfortable working through other comments and suggestions given to us via the FAC review. --Mfreud (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this goes both ways. We won't submit it if you don't think it's ready. You're the one doing the research, and if you feel something is missing or isn't communicated well, you and your class would honestly know better than anyone. Wrad (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I would advise against FAC at this point. I still think the "Genre" section needs to get worked out and there is some serious copy editing that needs to be done (there are misspelled words in the article, for example). Prose is one of the issues that many reviewers comment on at FAC (sometimes quite harshly). Let's give ourselves some more time to refine the writing. Mike Christie promised he would copy edit and I can do some more as well. How about we give ourselves one more week? I think creating an "FAC checklist" might help as well. That way all of the disparate efforts on this talk page can see the march of progress towards FAC readiness. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan. Wrad (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can do a copyedit whenever the editors are ready; usually multiple passes are good since you see different things each time. If it's OK with the editors I will try to do a pass this weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be great!! That would be awsome if you are able to give the article a copyedit sometime this weekend. From what I understand we really need to re-word prose, fix spelling etc. Hopefully with a full copyedit the article will flow much better, and I think we need to reword a lot of the direct citations we have used thus far. Please don't hold back!! We are very new to Wikipedia and this whole process so any input by experianced editors such as yourself is really helpful. On a general note, if Mike Christie is able to do a copyedit over the course of the weekend and with some work then hopefully by next weekend we will be more ready by next weekend to submit for FAC!--Mfreud (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started this afternoon; looks like I have some time free. I'm not an infallible copyeditor by any means so please disagree or query with any changes that look wrong. I'll leave notes here on the talk page if I come up with any questions. Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC checklist

FAC checklist based on the featured article criteria:

• Is the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard"?

• After Mike Christie's list and my list have been dealt with, I would say we are done with this. More issues will arise at FAC, but we have copy edited to our heart's content, I think. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Just a few more things here. Awadewit (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This seems mostly done. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is the article comprehensive? Does it explain all of the major aspects of the topic?

• My only question here is about the reception of the novel - are we at a dead end there? Can nothing else be added? Awadewit (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• More has been added on this front. Awadewit (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are all of the claims supported by citations?

• There are still "citation needed" tags. Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are no more tags. Awadewit (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are all of the sources reliable?

• Have all of the issues with the sources been resolved? Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think so. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article present its information neutrally?

• I haven't seen any problems with this. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article have a lead that summarizes the article and outlines the sections of the article?

• I think the "Themes" section should be referenced in the lead a bit more. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I added a sentence to the lead about the themes. Do you suggest we mention each theme, how detailed should it be?--Katekonyk (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've just done this myself to save time. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article use a consistent citation style?

• Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article have useful images (with captions) that have acceptable copyright?

• Has the copyright issue been resolved now? I would also suggest adding quote boxes to liven up the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to fix some of the image problems. But I fear that they may not be fixed enough for some. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have expanded on some of the purposes. I am not an expert in fair use, however. I still think adding quote boxes would liven up the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article stay on topic without going into unnecessary detail?

• I think we are fine here. Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article follow the MOS?
  • Yes. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refine this list, add comments, and strike out when you feel something is complete. Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes from copyedit

I'll drop notes here in a bullet list as I do the copyedit. This is a long list, but these are mostly very simple to fix.

• I'm working on the lead, which says "numerous awards"; I'm going to cut this because the article only lists two awards. If there are more and they are worth noting, let's add them to the body. I'm not sure we need to mention more than the Nobel in the lead.

Thanks, I completely agree! --Mfreud (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The mention of the "new novel" isn't explained or linked in the lead; it is given more context in the body, but you might consider either cutting this unexplained reference or adding a very brief gloss.

I went to go add in a brief gloss after reading this and noticed you have already done an eloqent job of doing so, thanks again!--Mfreud (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, I'm not sure I know what you're referring to! The bit in the lead I mean is this: "In turn, El Señor Presidente went on to influence a generation of Latin American authors, becoming an early example of the "new novel" and a precursor to the Latin American literary boom." In the body, under the Style section, the first few sentences describe the new novel; you don't directly define it but it appears that it's essentially characterized by a break with historicism and realism, and perhaps also by the use of surrealist or magic realist techniques. It's this definition of "new novel" that doesn't show up in the lead, and it is because the term is somewhat obscure (and there doesn't appear to be a handy short definition) that I was thinking it should be either cut from the lead or defined there. If it were up to me, I'd cut it, leaving the sentence as "In turn, El Señor Presidente went on to influence a generation of Latin American authors", partly because a concise definition seems hard, and partly because it doesn't seem a really important point in the critical history of the novel -- it's more relevant to historical criticism than to current assessments of the novel, it seems. But either cutting it or glossing it would work. Does that make it clearer what my difficulty with it was? Mike Christie (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I was confused by the first comment, I thought you had added the part about the new novel... anyways, I will then cut it because I think it will be hard to write any concise definition to explain it. Sorry about the confusion.--Mfreud (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In the background section, the quote from Asturias doesn't give his age -- as a reader unfamiliar with him I wondered if he was a small child at the time, which seemed quite possible as the interview was 53 years later. I looked up his article and found that he was 18; it might be good to insert this information shortly after the quote to provide context for the reader.

Thanks for the suggestion, i've now added it!--Mfreud (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why is "the President" unquoted and in italics in the fourth paragraph of the background section? If English translations simply name the character as "the President" without italics, I think it would suffice to quote it. Italics indicate (among other things) book titles and foreign words; neither seems to apply here.

Thanks for fixing this for us, at one time the article listed the title of the book in italics as both The President and El Senor Presidente so the character must have been confused at one point for the book title... but thanks for fixing that!--Mfreud (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't recall fixing it, but it's certainly gone. I tweaked it a little further. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The same sentence describes the President as "mythological"; is this a term the critics use, or is it just intended to indicate that the president is not definitely identified as a historical figure? If the latter, I'd suggest using "fictional" instead as "mythological" has other overtones that I don't think are warranted. Later: I see the word "mythological" appears later in the discussion of the President as a character, so I suspect this is OK.

Mythological is a little confusing so I changed it to fictional, thanks :)--Mfreud (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• A more general question on this topic: the paragraph is making the case that the character is based on Estrada Cabrera. However, further down in the article, Asturias appears to unambiguously confirm this when he says that "[Ubico's] predecessor, Estrada Cabrera, was my Señor Presidente". Doesn't this mean we don't need to make this case? Can't we just state that Estrada Cabrera is the President? The critical opinions might be interesting if there was some period during which the identification with Estrada Cabrera was not certain.

The thing is that in the book there is no direct link to Guatemala or Estrada Cabrera and I think that as Asturias says, Cabrera was his senor presidente, meaning that there have been many senor presidentes throughout history.... I think the idea behind the argument for links to Cabrera is because it is so vague in the book... but if the argument is just going around in circles then I agree that we should shorten it use Asturias's words.... --Mfreud (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK. It occurred to me after I wrote this note that Asturias was probably referring to the fact that Estrada Cabrera was the president during Asturias's life, so that does mean the argument is necessary. Let's leave it as it is. Mike Christie (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've copyedited the paragraph on Estrada Cabrera's trial, but I wonder if it could be shortened. Does the reader need to know about the trial? Or could we cut those first two sentence, and merge the last sentence with the previous paragraph?

Looks like this has been fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• A word or two of description for Himelblau would be good the first time he's mentioned; the reader needs to know why we're quoting him. I'd add this myself, but I don't know anything about him: should it be "literary critic Jack Himelblau", or "literary theorist", or something else? Struck out: I see I missed the first reference, where he is described as a critic, so this is fine.
• "and despite certain historical references" is a bit unspecific. How about "despite identifiable references in the novel to Guatemalan history", assuming that's what is meant?

I changed the word "references" to "ties" because there are no extremly identifiable references to Guatemalan history in the novel itself, all these comparisons have come from critics examining Asturia's life and ties to Cabrera, as well as interviews where Asturias has called Cabrere his senor presidente. Other than that though, there are no extremley idenfiable ref's to Guate's history. Is it okay the way I have changed it?--Mfreud (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That works. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Asturias depicts aspects of life that are common to all dictatorial regimes, and so establishes El Señor Presidente as one of his most influential works." If there's a source that draws this conclusion -- that the lack of historical specificity is what has made the novel influential -- it would be good to cite.

I have not addressed this issue yet because I am not sure how to. I don't think there is a source that draws this conclusion... maybe this phrase needs to be cut out or changed...??--Mfreud (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be within the bounds of logical deduction, rather than synthesis. Let's leave it in and see if anyone objects at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Miguel Angel Face informs Major Farfan [...] of the threat on his life." What threat? Perhaps I missed something but I don't see any previous reference to this. And whose life, come to that?

El Senor Presidente has many many small characters, who appear for many a couple sentences, many part of a page and never appear again. Major Farfan in a major in the Presidnet's military service. Miguel Angel Face learns that there is a plot to kill him and so in attempting to do a good act (so that he might save Camilia's life through an act of kindness), Major Farfan, a character not mentioned in the novel before this, is informed by Miguel Angel Face of the plot on his life.

Major Farfan is not mentioned in the book until near the end, when he is involved in the act of arresting Miguel Angel Face and throwing him in a prison cell.... We have been having a lot of problems expressing the plot so that it is not too long while at the same time integrating some of the smaller characters and trying to provide not too too much back story. I have tried working on this part of the plot story before and am at a bit of a stand-still. Hopefully this explanation is clear enough that you might be able to clarify this point in the plot summary for me??--Mfreud (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the details. I tried a tweak based on what you said; does that work? I'll strike this note and let you work further with it if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "and thus a marriage ceremony is conducted": the problem with this is that it doesn't say who she marries; it's not completely obvious to a reader unfamiliar with the book that it has to be Angel Face. How about: "and the two of them are soon married", if "soon" is correct, possibly with a following clause such as "in a ceremony conducted at the hospital" (or wherever it was) if you still want to refer to the ceremony?

Thanks for the suggestion, that sounds much better! --Mfreud (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• "General Canales dies suddenly in the midst of plans to lead a new revolution when he is falsely informed that the President has attended his daughter's wedding"; what connects the two halves of this? If he dies because of (for example) a heart attack at being informed about the President, because it is a shock to him, I think that should be mentioned. If the events aren't causally related, I'd suggest putting them in chronological order: "General Canales is in the midst of plans to lead a new revolution when he is falsely informed that the President has attended his daughter's wedding, but soon afterwards he dies of X" or something like that. Struck out -- I found a later note about his broken heart and inserted that here.
• Can you confirm that Walker uses a hyphen in "a-political" in his quote? The word is not normally hyphenated; if he uses one we should reproduce it but otherwise the hyphen should go.

I changed it to "a political" as he doesnt use a hyphen in his quote!--Mfreud (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm striking this because you've checked the quote, but I'll just say I was startled to see this result; I was expecting "apolitical", not "a political". Mike Christie (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should "preludes his spiritual salvation" be "precludes"? It looks like a typo, but critics say weird things so I thought I'd let you check the quote.

I can't seem to find this quote anywhere in the article anymore... perhaps it has been reworded... ??--Mfreud (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it! Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Another check of quote accuracy: "animistic elements surface occasionally in the characters stream of consciousness" should have an apostrophe in "characters'"; I have put this one in since it seems very likely that it was in the original, but you might check.

Thanks for catching that, you're right!--Mfreud (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• This quote: "impose itself upon reality because men live it fully in a way to make sense of their humanity, and thus cosmic fire can break out because men with its effort and thus free it" appears to have something wrong with it: the last part makes no sense. Can you check the source and (I'd assume) correct it?

I checked the quote and I don't think the last half of the quote is important or really clear out of the context of the article it is sourced from so I shortened this to read: impose itself upon reality because men live it fully in a way to make sense of their humanity Is that okay?--Mfreud (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's great. I haven't got a clue what he was trying to say in the second half, but now it doesn't matter. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Bauman quote at the end of "Writing and Power" section raises two questions. First, I added the start quote, which wasn't there; can you check I did so in the right place? Second, I suspect it's been mistranscribed; it says "derives [...] on his ability", which is a very odd usage. It should probably be "from his ability".

I can't seem to find this quote under writing and power anymore... perhaps I am missing something, is it still there?

It seems to be gone, so we're good here. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the characters in these episodes often appear inconsistently": do you mean "act inconsistently"? I'd have changed this but I wasn't sure of the intended meaning.

No, I did mean appear inconsistently... many characters only appear once, or maybe a few times in the novel... their appearance in the novel is not sequential and does not follow any sort of organized pattern... they just appear for a few scenes and then some of them re-emerge in later scenes.... is there perhaps a better word to use to describe the brief and inconsistent appearance of these characters?--Mfreud (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is fine -- I just wanted to be sure the meaning was accurate. Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Himelblau quote at the end of the "Literary Significance" section did not have a starting quote; I've inserted one in what I think must be the right place, but it would be best if someone could check it.

The Literary Signifigance section has been reworked into corresponding Genre and Style sections... I don't quite know how to check this anymore but I have a feeling you most likely put it in the right place! I looked at the Himelblau quote still in the style and genre sections... as long as the quote has not been moved to another section, it looks good to me!--Mfreud (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• I changed some instances of "The President" to "the President"; unless critics and scholars routinely leave the capitalization on "The" when talking about the character (as opposed to the novel), I'd suggest this is less confusing; aside from anything else it helps distinguish discussion of the novel from discussion of the character.

Thanks!--Mfreud (talk) 05:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• I changed one occurence of "Miguel Angel Asturias" to "Miguel Ángel Asturias" (accent on the A in "Ángel"). There are plenty more instances of "Angel", but they're in citations and titles. Should they be changed too? And should it be "Ángel Face" rather than "Angel Face"?

I changed the remaining A's to Á's in the names Miguel Angel Asturias in the name of the author. For Miguel Angel Face (sometimes Angel Face), I just checked the novel and his name never has an accent on the A. I think this issue is solved? --Mfreud (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mike Christie (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please also take a look at the embedded comments that SandyGeorgia left in the article yesterday, which include some queries about capitalization. I dealt with one of them; you can see the others by clicking on "Edit this page" at the top of the article, and then searching for the string "<!--". That's the string that begins comments. If you can't find them, let me know and I'll copy them over here for you to see.

These all appear to be fixed, so I'll strike this too for completeness.

That's everything I can spot. I think a pass from a MOS expert would be good; I fixed a few things I spotted but there are people much better at that sort of copyediting than me. This is a fine article, with extensive coverage, good structure, and thorough citations. There's a little more work to take it to FAC, but you're getting close. -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for taking the time to do that! I think I speak for the entire team working on this article when I say that we really appreciate all the suggestions and revisions you have made. We will go through the notes you have made in the next couple of days and try to resolve these remaining issues. Thanks again!--Mfreud (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I did an MOS pass through the article and fixed everything I saw. I think this article looks very good. The only glaring things that I saw that need to be fixed are 3 citation needed tags. One is in the section on Miguel Angel Face. The other two are in the paragraph about Estrada Cabrera's trial. The article also does not provide a good transition into the trial. I think those two uncited sentences could just be removed. If you can fix these three, I think you are ready for an FA nomination (it would get my support in this form). The other things that Mike Christie mentioned above should be addressed, but I think you can fix them after you post the nomination. There will be other comments, so you'll be spending a lot of time in the article anyway ;) Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking good...

Excellent work all, this article is really looking like something special now! Apologies for my recent absence; it wasn't lack of interest but a bout of flu... Anyhow, just thought I'd drop by to hand out beers and chocolate ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Final round of questions from Awadewit

I am doing a final copy edit in preparation for FAC. Here are my questions. I will just list them as I come across them.

• More is revealed of Miguel Angel Face's complex character and the struggle between his physical desires for Camila and his desire to become a better person in a world ruled by terror. - This statement from the plot summary is a bit vague. Could it be transformed into plot summary?

This part refers to a chapter called Viscous Circle, after leaving Camilia at the Two Step a few chapters earlier, where: "Miguel Angel Face said goodbye to Camilia, who was weeping over the unbelievable misfortune that had befalled her...as he went out he felt his eyes fill with tears for the first time since his mother's death"(129) and then later, in the chapter called Vicious Circle, the reader is introduced to Angel Face's internal dialogue where "his instinct accused him of suffering these torments [mental torments] because he had not taken Camilia by force" (141). This chapter reveals Angel Face's struggle between his physical desire for Camilia and his will to "save Camilia from [his] desire" (141). I'm not too sure how to work this into a plot summary point but hopefully by giving you a more percise explanation of what that sentence is trying to express, we can work through these kinks. --Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First question: Is this chapter integral to the book? Must it be described? Since it is plot summary, not everything has to be described. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an important development in the Character of Miguel Angel Face but perhaps this sentence/the information about his character that comes from this chapter should be moved to the discussion of Miguel Angel Face under the characters section?--Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's try putting a version into the character description - that is a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• By this good deed Angel Face offers God a good act in order to spare Camila's life, as she hovers between life and death. - Is this explicit in the book? That is, is this an analytical statement?

No, this is clear in the book... "death emptied his vacant stare into Camilia's eyes; the Devil sat at the head of the bed spitting out spiders, and the Angel wept in a corner, with long-drawn-out sobs"(170). Then, Miguel Angel Face thinks to himself, "grace comes by devious paths- of saving a man who was in grave danger of death. Perhaps God would grant him Camilia's life in exchange"(170-171). THEN, "Miguel Angel Face went off to carry out his plan"(171). AND "impelled by the desire to do good so that God should reward him by saving Camilia, he..."(172) How should it be clarified our sourced in the plot summary??--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Plot summary, part three: Why is Camila's marriage unconventional?

I am not sure, perhpas because she was on her death bed when the ceremony was conducted, her father was not present, the ceremony was not in a church but instead at the Two Step while she was lying in bed... How should this be explained in the plot summary??--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're not sure, how about just leaving out the description of it as "unconventional"? Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done :)--Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The puppet-master, Don Benjamin, has been reduced to madness because of the environment he has been made to endure. - What environment?

The environment of life under this dictatorship, an environment of fear and reality vs. dream... does that make sense?--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"environment of terror" perhaps? Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done :)--Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More to come (hopefully not many). Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• There needs to be consistency in the capitalization of "Cathedral Porch" - should "porch" be capitalized?

the porch is always capatalized in the novel, either in the title "Cathedral Porch"(7, 285) or "Porch of Our Lord" (7) and also in sentences like, "...search every corner of the Porch with his eyes and..."(8) or "the debris of the Porch from a bridge"(287).--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it - please capitalize "Porch" throughout the article. Easy one! Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, I used the search tool and looked up every time the word porch is used and Capatalized it. Hopefully the tool helped me spot everything so I think this is taken care of. :)--Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• There needs to be consistency in the hyphenation of "puppet-master" - should it be one hyphenated word or two words?

In the book the word is hyphenated to read, ex. "puppet-master"(286)--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another easy one - so we should hyphenate the word throughout the article. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

With the help of the word search tool, I have also checked to make sure that puppet-master is hyphenated throughout the article! --Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copy edited through the "Characters" section now. Awadewit (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please watch out for quotation marks - Wikipedia uses logical quotation marks (see WP:PUNC). I'm fixing a lot of these right now.

I've copy edited through the "Style" section now. Awadewit (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• In this film version, "the village idiot kills an army colonel after enduring endless sadistic taunts. The president tries to pin the murder on his political rival. The president sends an operative to fuel the rumor mill but he falls for the accused man's daughter. He defects to the other side and helps the daughter and her father starts revolution with inside information on the corrupt leader." - This long quote has to be paraphrased.

I did my best to rephrase this, it now reads: As in Asturias’ novel, the film’s action is instigated when the village idiot kills a taunting army colonel. In response to this, the president decides to blame this murder of a political adversary. Here the movie diverges at points from the novel. In the movie, an operative is sent to stimulate rumors about the accused and instead he falls in love with the accused man’s daughter. Once this happens, the operative defies his loyalty to the president and helps the daughter and her father incite a revolution with the inside information he has on the corrupt leader.--Mfreud (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the comparison between the book and the film - this is better than the quote! Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• This version paints the picture of "a tragic and impossible love story lost between degradation and fear". - This quote from imdb must be paraphrased - imdb is not a reliable source for quotes.

I tried to paraphrase this quote... it was really hard to do because it is so direct and concise as it is but here is what it now reads: This version paints the picture of a hopeless love story- one that is trapped between the of world of degredation and fear and unable to succeed under the corrupt dictatorship --Mfreud (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't you can copy "between degradation and fear" - that's too much. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How about- This version paints the picture of a hopeless love story- one that is unable to succeed under the terrorizing and corrupt dictatorship ??--Mfreud (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Awadewit (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've copy edited everything except for the "Themes" section. I'll do that tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you so much for putting so much time and work into this, we all really appreciate it as I understand that you are extremely busy as it is. I really appreciate it and hopefully have been doing alright at adressing the issues as they arise!--Mfreud (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• In El Señor Presidente, Asturias uses language to challenge dictatorial power. - I didn't see any explanation or evidence supporting this claim in the "Writing and power" section. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found a source which will provide scholarly evidence to support this claim, I'll make sure to add references tonight.--Katekonyk (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• hope does not exist under a dictatorship - "does not" or "cannot"? Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this sentence to read: In El Señor Presidente, hope is supressed by the dictatorship Is that okay?--Mfreud (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Awadewit (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of "Tyranny and alienation" needs a topic sentence to prepare readers for the main ideas to come. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added an introductory sentence, hope it helps.--Katekonyk (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Decide if "Other" is going to be capitalized or not. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In the article by Barrueto he capatalized the word "Other" and "Otherness" so would it be okay if it is capatalized throughout?--Mfreud (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I think it is usually capitalized. Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• For Professor Barrueto, El Señor Presidente is concrete evidence that literature acts as a cultural praxis where the need to portray as "the land where the said Otherness prevails, and where not only the native but even society does not evolve to higher goals" - This quote should probably be explained rather than quoted. Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with this one, I did some rewording to get rid of the quote and make sense of what Barrueto (and I!!) are trying to say! Let me know if it still needs work :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think this sounds confused, but that may be because the original is confused. Perhaps next week I'll track down this article and wade through it myself. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• He goes on to argue that this difference cannot be simply erased and that because the native, Asturias, has affirmed the inherent otherness of Latin American societies, it is proven that Latin American societies, though aware of modernity, are unable to embody it.[9] Instead, they are revealed as corrupted and primitive in disposition - Are we totally sure that this is what the critic is saying? (Note: Sometimes everything a critic says cannot be explained in a Wikipedia article - it takes too much background knowledge.) Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think jbmurray has done a fabulous job with this and made much more sense out of the article than I did. How do you think this section reads now?--Mfreud (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better, yes. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done copy editing now! Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture?

I really enjoyed re-reading this today! Just a very minor point, but wasn't there a picture of Manuel Estrada Cabrera at one point? If one could be found for the Background section I think it would enhance this section nicely (better, in fact, than the mugshot of Juan José Arévalo). EyeSerene^talk 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• I believe there was a problem with the copyright. I don't know if there is another one. Awadewit (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• It was (basically) the one at the top of this page. I can't believe that any of the photos here are still in copyright. Then see also these possible sources.[5] [6] Surely one of these is OK. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Um, I can't read the pages - do we have a copyright expert who can read Spanish. I feel very lame. Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Heh. The main point, though, is that the photographs have to be over eighty years old. I'd have thought that prima facie they were out of copyright? Then a case could be made for the news photos, which depict the uprising against Estrada Cabrera, that they aren't about to be replaced any time soon. I dunno: I don't know much about copyright. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I don't really see how there was ever a copyright problem with that image. The original is almost certainly out-of-copyright by now, so copyright can't then be claimed by websites it appears on. It would be as well to check the original date and country of publication though (the length of time until copyright expires varies). I'll dig around a bit... EyeSerene^talk 10:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: from everything I could find, the image is unlikely to be copyrighted (I think 70 years is the usual expiry term, although it's complicated by the image publication date and location). EyeSerene^talk

Leal?

I just noticed that a quotation here had been pulled from this website. But to get the correct page number, you're gonna have to go to the library. It's PN56.M24 M34 1995, on reserve at Koener. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it! I will fix this tommorow!--Mfreud (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Done! :) ... I also added the ISBN number in the references part of the book--Mfreud (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I know there are a couple of things to do, and Awadewit and Mfreud have been working very hard on this article. On the Barrueto, I now have a copy of the article and will try to sort that matter out. But I propose we put this in for FAC now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I propose that the honour of the nomination goes to Mfreud. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Mfreud should nominate it when s/he feels ready. Awadewit (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Mfreud, when you're ready, take a look at the instructions for nominating at WP:FAC, and if you need any help just post a question here. Mike Christie (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to go for it, my only hesitation is that I am currently working on two rather large research essays and having to work on top of that so I will not be able to address a bombardment of needed improvements until Tuesday. If everyone else wants to put it up for FAC and it is not an issue that the concerns other editors raise wont be adressed (at least by me) until early next week, feel free to put it up for FAC today or tommorow. :)--Mfreud (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting at least until the question of the title is settled; see below and a question I posted here. Would either of your co-editors on this project be able to work on issues over the weekend? Mike Christie (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, EyeSerene suggests waiting to see what the response is at FAC to the question of the title... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fun here, isn't it? :D My suggestion is not made from a "let's see if we can sneak it through" perspective, but rather because I suspect the title is going to come up whatever you do - it may be one of those issues that won't get consensus, so you might as well save some work now and be in a position to respond to the FA reviewers if it does get raised. Having said that, Mike is far more experienced in FA than I, so I'd take his advice over mine any day! EyeSerene^talk 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think the lead needs to be expanded a bit per my comment on the checklist. Awadewit (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for my recent absence but I am around this weekend to address any further issues on the page. Perhaps it would be best if we can wait until after the weekend to nominate it so there is a bit more time to fix any remaining issues, plus I have a few more sources that were recommended for filling out the page. Either way, I'll be working on the page, and thanks so much for everyone's help!--Katekonyk (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversations at the mission talk page have convinced me that the Spanish title is the best one. EyeSerene is right that it could come up at FAC, but I think it's best to go in with what we think is right. I suggest the following sequence.

1. Propose a move to "El Señor Presidente" as the consensus best title. If nobody posts here to disagree, one of the admins on the FA team can make this happen. I'll manage the communication around that. Not necessary; see below.
2. Work on making the internal references to titles consistent (English vs. Spanish). This can happen at the mission talk page too. Since this is mechanical, once we know the resolution, I'll volunteer to edit the article to make it comply with whatever we decide. Not needed; the article is consistent with the new title. Mike Christie (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Work on the lead. Awadewit is the best literature article editor on Wikipedia; if she says the lead needs expansion I think others might agree. Perhaps Katekonyk could have a try at this over the weekend?
4. Scan this talk page for any remaining issues that aren't addressed; I don't think anything else is required to go to FAC but there's no reason to wait on looking at those issues.
5. Add any other material Katekonyk or the other editors have found that they feel would be beneficial.
6. Once points 1-3 above are done, the nomination to FAC can happen, but points 4 to 5 don't have to wait for the FAC nomination.

When Katekonyk and Mfreud are happy with the lead, and Awadewit agrees; and when the article is moved, then Katekonyk and/or Mfreud can nominate at FAC. In the meantime I and others of the FA-team will watch the article and help with copyediting or any other issues that come up.

Does that sound like a plan? Mike Christie (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything sounds great to me and I am fine with changing the title. Tomorrow I will work on making the lead more detailed and attempting to fix any remaining issues. Thanks so much for all your suggestions. --Katekonyk (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the most recent discussion here it looks as if we're going to leave the title as it is. I've struck out the move step above.

Unfortunately I'll have little access to the web for most of today and may not be able to edit significantly again till tomorrow. I suggest that once the lead is OK, the FAC nomination can go ahead immediately. Often it's a day or two before you get substantive comments so in the meantime you can work on any remaining issues here. I will clean up issues (if any) with Spanish or English titles some time this weekend. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

Why is it referred to by the Spanish title throughout? This isn't standard practice unless the work commonly uses the original title in English, but if it is adopted for a logical reason then the article should be moved to El Señor Presidente too. Yomangani^talk 00:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions - here are the rules on naming pages. I haven't read them in a while. *sigh* Someone should look that over. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the novel was refered to in the spanish title because in the first english translation it retained its original title (in spanish) and also almost all the scholarly references we used never refer to the book at "The President" and only use "El Senor Presidente" even though these articles are written in english, it seems odd that we would be the only enlgish reference for the book using "The President" throughout and not "El Senor Presidente" but I guess if it is a no-no in wikipedia I will go through the article tommorow and change all references to "El Senor Presidente" to "The President. One question though, when the quoted material calls the book El Senor Presidente, do I change it there too??--Mfreud (talk) 06:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is some confusion here. As Mfreud says, when the book was first translated, it kept the title El Señor Presidente. I have a copy of that edition (otherwise the translation is exactly the same), that I bought some years ago. It was something of a surprise to me when, teaching this course, I realized that the title had now changed to The President. I presume that a new generation (oh, I feel so old!) will now be coming to know the book as The President. (As an extra complication, it's sometimes referred to as "Mr President," which would be the logical translation; I'm not sure it's ever been published under that title, however.) But I do see the logic of ensuring that the article name and the title we use are in synch. It would sure be easier if we changed the page name rather than the title we use. For what it's worth, the article was first created as El Señor Presidente. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at WP:ENGLISH, which says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." As you can see from our References, other encyclopedias (such as Verity Smith's) use El Señor Presidente rather than The President. I suggest the page should be moved. I tried to be bold and move it, but I think we need an administrator's help.

As I say, I have the earlier edition of the translation, which is entitled El Señor Presidente. I can scan the cover. We can change the bibliographic reference because, as I remember, in fact even the page numbers are exactly the same. And we can just make a note in the first sentence that the book is also translated as The President. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Just to note WP:ENGLISH won't hold water in a dispute. It isn't even an accepted guideline. However,Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words is official policy and it says: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English." Interpret as you will. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Having already spent hours researching this novel, I can say without a doubt that the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the english.--Mfreud (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then we should move the page to El Señor Presidente. Could we get more people to agree to this, so there is a consensus? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The discussion here seems to be coming down to common sense and whaever the main editors prefer. Shall I go ahead and ask one of the FA team admins to do the move? Mike Christie (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

For what its worth I also agree with the move, it doesnt contradict policy and its what the editors want Acer (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think asking an admin at this point would be a good idea. Awadewit (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do!! When we originally created the page, we created it as El Señor Presidente, for the reason that it is the most commonly used title, even in english translations of the novel as well as all english scholary reviews of the novel. Perhaps the next thing to do will be then for Jbmurray to scan the cover of one of the earlier english translations entitled El Señor Presidente and have that as the picture image of the book. How does that sound?--Mfreud (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked Geometry Guy; if one of the other admins stops by they may go ahead and do it before he gets to it. Mike Christie (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A very sensible outcome, IMO. Common sense gets my !vote every time ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. If the hordes come after you, I'm looking the other way :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the parenthetical "(novel)" bit? It's not necessary in Spanish. Wrad (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it was a direct copy of the previous title The President (novel) and because it is in Spanish which is against - however you feel about the 'policy' - is against policy. A non-Spanish speaker needs a clue as to what the article title is about and the little (novel) in English says that. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Rather than split the discussion across two pages) People who don't speak Spanish either won't be searching for it in Spanish or will be copying the Spanish title verbatim. Who will be looking for it at "El Señor Presidente (novel)"? It's a disambiguation title for a page that doesn't need disambiguating. We don't give clues in the titles of any other foreign language titled articles. The old title only had (novel) added because The President was already taken. Yomangani^talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's drop the "(novel)". Mike Christie (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seconding. No need for (novel) its not desambiguating anything Acer (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourthing. Please drop it immediately, as I am in the process of nominating the article for FAC upon Mfreud's request. I think I can still nominate it under the new title. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Give me 10 min I'm sorting out another problem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

10 minutes!? But this is the most important thing possible. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Collided with an older version but I've restored the old history also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! I'm changing the image right now... in two ticks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think all is well! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A little slower would have given me time to hijack the FAC nomination at the new title though. (see point 9) ;) Yomangani^talk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

- Anyone know how to fix the peer review? I don't want to anger Gimmebot by just doing a move and I'm not sure the process for fixing.... Karanacs (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy will know (and she'll be overjoyed) Yomangani^talk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I thought it was dead. I'll drop a note to Gimmetrow, but there is some dastardly glitch affecting monobook today, so he may be busy. I may know how to fix it myself, give me a minute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, d'oh, of course I know how to fix it myself; I can just add it directly to AH. Give me a second. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)