Talk:Miguel Ángel Asturias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Miguel Ángel Asturias was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Miguel Ángel Asturias: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Source material from reliable secondary sources.
  • Expand: Several sections of the article need expansion.
This article was the subject of a Spring 2008 educational assignment: Murder, Madness, and Mayhem.
reabell and Span312 thank the FA-Team and WikiProject Novels for their help.
Revision summary: 15 January, 2008, 609 revisions, 13 April, 2008. B-Class status achieved.
We invite you to make further improvements and changes.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] References

The following references were sitting on the page, doing nothing in particular. I.e. none of them had been cited. So I'm copying them over here. They should be consulted and used, or deleted. NB the only reference that was being used was in fact an encyclopedia article, which is not a great source. As Researching with Wikipedia puts it: "an encyclopedia is intended to be a starting point for serious research, not an endpoint."

Anyhow, these are the references that need to be used or deleted:

  • (Spanish) Cardoza y Aragón "Miguel Angel Asturias, Casi Novela" (Miguel Angel Asturias, Almost a Novel). (1991) Ediciones Era.
  • Nobel Lectures, Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, (1969)
  • "Miguel Angel Asturias." Encyclopedia of World Biography. 2005-2006 Thomson Gale, Thomson Corporation
  • "Lost in the Maize." Metroactive Books. August 14, 1997 Metro Publishing Inc.
  • "Miguel Angel Asturias." UXL Encyclopedia of World Biography. CNET Networks, Inc. (2007).
  • Auer-Ramanisa, Beby. "Miguel Angel Asturias et la Révolution Guatémaltèque : étude socio-politique de trois romans." Paris: Anthropos, 1981.
  • Sierra Franco, Aurora. "Miguel Angel Asturias en la Literatura." Guatemala: Editorial Istmo, 1969.
  • Priento, Rene. "Miguel Angel Asturias’s Archeology of Return." Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1993.
  • Verdugo, Iber. " El Carácter de la Literatura Hispanoamericana y la Novelística de Miguel Angel Asturias." Guatemala: Guatemala Editorial Universitaria, 1968.
  • Leon Hill, Eladia. "Miguel Angel Asturias; lo Ancestral en su Obra Literaria." New York: Eliseo Torres, 1972.

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And the same goes for the following references: they should be located in the library and cited and used; or deleted.

  • Prieto, René, Miguel Angel Asturias's Archaeology of Return. – Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993
  • Llarena, Alicia, Realismo mágico y lo real maravilloso : Una cuestión de verosimilitud. – Gaithersburg, MD : Hispamérica, 1997
  • Marting, Diane E, The Sexual Woman in Latin American Literature : Dangerous Desires. – Gainesville, L : Univ. Press of Florida, 2001
  • Welly, Carina, Literarische Begegnungen mit dem Fremden : Intranationale und internationale Vermittlung kultureller Alterität am Beispiel des Erzählwerks Miguel Ángel Asturias'. – Würzburg : Königshausen & Neumann, 2004

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And this was in the "external links" section:

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

More of the same...

  • Verdugo, Iber (1968), El Carácter de la Literatura Hispanoamericana y la Novelística de Miguel Angel Asturias, Guatemala: Guatemala Editorial Universitaria .
  • Callan, R.G. (1970). Miguel Angel Asturias. New York: Tawayne, 182. 

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better Sources!

The sources currently being used on this page are really not very good. This one, for instance, is simply a digest of other encyclopedia articles, which aren't great sources in the first place. Given the amount of suggested sources on this page (see above), there's no real excuse for not consulting them! Or look here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and my formatting some of the references to websites should not be interpreted as any endorsement from me that these are the best sources. It is up to you guys to source the article well. I can help out with minor issues such as formatting. Geometry guy 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd go so far as to say that if at all possible all cites to Donaldson and McHenry should be replaced by more authoritative sources. Again, looking at the bibliography above, this shouldn't be hard. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism alert What's more, far too much of the material taken from these three websites (the Britannica, the Donaldson compendium, and the "UXL Newsmakers" site) is in fact plagiarized: either not changed at all, or with only the occasional word changed. I've tried to fix some instances I've seen of this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I'm trying to clean up my sources a bit and add more books to my references. A lot of my information comes from websites (see my footnotes) and I'm not quite sure how to properly cite them. Could someone give me a hand? --Reabell (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The best thing is not to use websites as your main sources. But if they are needed, use the {{cite web}} template. Try to find out who the author is. Provide an accessdate, title, url, and publisher (the organisation behind the website). I'm trying to help out by providing good cites for some of your websources. I hope you will get the idea from this. Geometry guy 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I did some more formatting. In particular, I added dates to the footnotes, as suggested by WP:CITE. I also switched from the {{cite book}} to {{citation}} templates, which are more flexible and slightly better in my opinion. This also allows you to make links from footnotes to references using {{Harvnb}} if you like that (I've done it, so you can see how it is done). I made my edits in stages, with full edit summaries, so if you don't like any particular change, go to the edit history of the article and click on "undo". Geometry guy 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed a few spaces in {{Harvnb}}, which is, sadly, sensitive to spaces around the author name. I hope this didn't cause any edit conflicts. Also, all authors need to be listed when citing multi-author works.
The quality of the referencing is improving very rapidly now, which makes a huge difference to the article's prospects! Geometry guy 01:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status Change

This article is now a B status, yay! Thank you wassupwestcoast... --Reabell (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary GA Review

  1. Needs pictures.
  2. "Education" section: First sentence is a nonsensical fragment.
  3. wikilink the first instance of important terms: countries, organizations, leaders, etc. (I have improved the wlinks up until "Exile and rehabilitation".
  4. Use logical quotation. Punctuation goes outside of the quote marks unless the meaning of the punctuation is included in the quoted fragment.
  5. Copyedit, especially for commas (I have copyedited up until "Exile and rehabilitation").

Malachirality (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the first sentence in Education section and have fixed all the quotation punctuation issues, I believe. I would like to point out that images are not required for GA (I've even seen articles pass FA without a single image). This article does have a photo of the subject, and as this is a biography, I believe that is appropriate and no more images are required. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oops, my bad, pictures are a suggestion ("where possible and appropriate"), not a requirement. Having said that, a lot of the other author and novel pages have scans of manuscripts and galley proofs, or pictures of original covers, etc. You could find pictures for the various events and people described in the article (the dictators, the revolutions, the Sorbonne, Asturias's birthplace, etc.). Just a suggestion. However, I think an editor has misinterpreted the third bullet point above and wlinked every instance of a term. This constitutes overlinking. In an article of this size, most terms should only be linked once (maybe twice, again near the end, if a term appears very early on)

--Malachirality (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with sources

There are a number of weak or doubtful sources used in this article:

1. The Donaldson webpage is not a good source, and should be replaced wherever possible with a better source.

2. Likewise the McHenry Encyclopedia article

3. Ditto the "Findarticles" piece by "UXL Encyclopedia"

4. I'm doubtful about the references to The Bejewelled Boy. Is what's being cited here actually written by Asturias himself, or is it (as seems most likely) publisher's blurb?

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I have removed a lot of bad sources, for example the "findarticles" and the Donaldson page..... should I remove them from the reference section as well? --Reabell (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you've removed the sources completely from the inline citations (i.e. what's in the text), then you can remove them now from the References section. NB we need to make sure also that bad sources are replaced by good ones! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

NB there are still a bunch of these poor sources there. They should be replaced. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What the Professor said :-). To be explicit: the quotations by Donaldson needs to be sourced to the original articles and authors; the remaining two Liukkonen refs need better sources; the use of Encyclopedia Britannica (McHenry) as a source should be minimized or eliminated. I've copied over the bibliographic info to help with the first job. For the other two, the problem is that they are tertiary sources: it is okay to use them to supplement secondary sources, but they can't be used on their own to support significant facts. Geometry guy 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to eliminate the Liukkonen refs but the remaining two I am still trying to find other support for (I don't want to loose the information). Erica has the McHenry source so hopefully she can find what that encyclopedia cites..... --Reabell (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I also am working to find the quote in the Hispanic Review so we can get rid of Donaldson...--Reabell (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I can deal with the Liukkonen refs. The Hispanic Review you can access via the Library website: search for "Hispanic Review" under "print and electronic journals at UBC." Everything from 1933 is online via JSTOR. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And for the I&L source... that's also at UBC, but not online. So hie thee to Koerner's, and you'll find it at PN51 .I18. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work so far! Also, if you happen to be somewhere near a 1968 issue of Comparative Literature Studies, we still need those specific Leal page numbers. Geometry guy 07:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And you might find yourself near a 1968 issue of Comparative Literature Studies if you were to wander towards classmark PN851 .C62 in Koerner Library... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I went to the library and found the page number for the Willis quote..... but the Leal source, in the Comparative Literature Studies, is not there. First Volume 5 was a 1953 release and second neither the Volume 5 or the 1968 books have the article. When I used the Leal source originally it was from an encyclopedia, should I try to track that down? I'm not quite sure what to do. --Reabell (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done on the Willis. About the Leal... Hmm. NB there are two journals called Comparative Literature Studies. The one at PN851 .C62 doesn't even start being published until 1964. I'd say try again, and ask a librarian if necessary. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) Thanks for updating the Leal citations. In view of the above, please check that the bibliographical details are all correct. I now believe this article is entirely adequately sourced (if that makes sense), even if sourcing could be improved in some places. Yay! Geometry guy 23:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further issues, tips

The article is making big progress! I've gone through and done a little bit of copyediting (more is required), and have some tips for you as you keep writing.

  • don't wikilink single years (full dates or month-day combinations should be wikilinked though)
  • A citation must occur at the end of each sentence that contains a quotation, even if that means that citations will be duplicated in successive sentences (WP:MOSQUOTE)
  • It's okay to just wikilink a word once in the article (unless it is a really long article). There's no need to wikilink words like Paris, or the name of the university, multiple times.

These are issues that need to be addressed:

  • Need to take care of the citation needed tags, and make sure all information is sourced to reliable sources.
  • There are a lot of quoted passages in the article that should probably be paraphrased instead. Save quotes for important things he said, or descriptions of his work that need to be quoted to save the meaning or a particularly wonderful turn of phrase
  • watch for passages that might not be a neutral point of view. For example, "viciously banned certain rituals" has a specific point of view (POV). The Central Americans think it was vicious; the Spanish didn't. To be NPOV, the description "viciously" would need to be removed.
  • The article needs a good copyedit. There is a lot of repetition within paragraphs, as well as some beautiful, flowery language that is probably more appropriate in a magazine than an encyclopedia article.

You guys are off to a great start, though. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and done an unlinking pass; Guatemala was linked multiple times, for example, and so was Men of Maize. I think I found most of them. Mike Christie (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a look through, and I think the biggest issue, apart from some missing reliable sources, is the related issue of inappropriate quotation mentioned by Karanacs above. Quotations should be used when it is important who is being quoted, but otherwise they should be paraphrased to eliminate the copyright violation, and cited but not quoted. I've eliminated a couple of quotations to illustrate, but there are many more of them. It should be easy to fix this. Geometry guy 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, though we should be careful that we don't lose the attribution. But the most important thing is replacing the unreliable sources.
Here's one little task: replace all instances of McHenry source with a decent scholarly reference. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Liukkonen. Also, specific page numbers for each of the the Leal and Franco (1989) citations would be appreciated. Geometry guy 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Liukkonen and McHenry are now only used to support basic facts which are unlikely to be challenged: these don't need citations at all for GA, but it is better to have tertiary sources for them than none at all. Geometry guy 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reviewer

Do either Geometry guy or Karanacs want to take over reviewing and closing this nom? --Malachirality (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that I have no problem with this in principle, but I wonder whether we might have another couple of days should someone else take over? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think there is consensus at GA that a "hold should be at least seven days, and extended at the discretion of the reviewer" - to quote one prolific and competent reviewer. I think you can get another couple of days. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm too close to the article to do the GA review, but I hope my comments are helpful in reviewing the article. Geometry guy 14:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbers for sources

The article would benefit from individual page references for the Franco citations. Thanks for adding the page references to the Leal citations, but it appears that these come from a compilation of journal papers. As far as I can tell from a quick web search, the original article is

Leal, Luis, “Myth and social realism in Miguel Angel Asturias”, Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. 5, 1968, pp. 237–247.

If you can get hold of this, please cite it directly with page numbers in that range. If not, please give bibliographical details of the compilation you are using (where the page numbers you cite are 780 and 781). Geometry guy 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What Geometry guy said. We do need page numbers for the (first) Franco work, as well as full details: what's the essay name? Meanwhile, I'd add that Comparative Literature Studies is available at Koerner library at PN851.C62. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
This is now all fixed, I believe. Geometry guy 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

What this article sets out to do, it does well. However, I believe it needs to do more. Under normal circumstances, I would fail this article straightaway, but I've been informed that a group of editors has been working hard on this, and will be able to respond to suggestions. So I'm putting it on hold for one week, pending the following repairs.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    This area needs some work. The lead is very solid, but the body paragraphs are choppy and repetitive. For example, every sentence in the first paragraph of "Political life" starts with "Asturias" or "he", and the second paragraph is proseline. There are a number of very short paragraphs (one or two sentences); these should be combined with other paragraphs or (preferably) expanded. I'd also like to see all of the biographical information collected under the heading "Biography", and other elements in their own sections.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Some errors, mostly involving titles. "El Señor Presidente" should be italicized, and the same is true for "Colegio del Padre Pedro". The second paragraph in "Family" is a big run-on sentence; the comma should be outside of "The Social Problem of the Indian," etc.
El Senor Presidente and titles such as Colegio del Padre Pedro are now italicized throughout--Mfreud (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    The sources are generally good. See 2b below for more information.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Yes and no. A number of paragraphs don't have citations at the end, making me wonder where that information comes from. (For example, the first paragraph under "Family".) Most of the information appears to be well-cited to good sources.
    C. No original research:
    Generally okay. I'd feel better about statements like El Señor Presidente is one of many novels to explore life under a Latin American dictator. if we had some other examples.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Good breadth, but we need more depth. See 3b below.
    B. Focused:
    Along with 1a, this is the most urgent area in need of attention. Without knowing more about the man myself, I feel as though the information here is rather cursory. The "Exile and rehabilitation" section appears very thin; twenty years in three tiny paragraphs doesn't seem fair. We barely get any information about his wives, and nothing at all about one of his sons. The section about his works looks good (though, given the very long "selected works" section at the bottom, I have to wonder if we shouldn't have more depth here too), but the biography needs more depth.
  3. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    So far as I can tell, this is fine.
  4. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Again, looks good from here.
  5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Mostly fair use, all rationaled.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    While I feel like the page needs more images, I can tell they're hard to find. Maybe include a map of Guatemala early on, and perhaps an image from the Mayan pages?
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold until 6 April so the above repairs can be made. Please let me know if you have questions. – Scartol • Tok 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for this! The article's been in suspense for a little while, and I think your review will help reinvigorate the effort to bring its standard up still higher. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have to do this, but it's been two weeks now and the article simply isn't where it needs to be. While the first section has been nicely improved, the other items mentioned above still need serious attention. Most of the edits during the last week have been reference-related and minor repairs. When the issues above are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.
Thank you all for your work so far, and please let me know if you have any questions. – Scartol • Tok 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Scartol, thanks for this. I'm also sorry that the article failed the review, but quite understand. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel prize-winning

The lead sentence shouldn't contain "Nobel prize-winning" should it? The opening sentence should be a general declarative sentence, telling the reader who the subject is. By including "Nobel prize-winning" you are immediately biasing the reader's opinion by highlighting one of the subject's achievements. For example: Halle Berry could either be "Academy award-winning" or "Razzie award-winning" per editor's choice, severely biasing the reader's opinion of Ms. Berry. indopug (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK either way. When I see "Oscar-winning" I don't automatically think "good actor/actress", I think "recognized"; and I think "Nobel-prize winning" is the same. "Razzie-winning" is different; that's an award intended to denigrate. Hence I don't find it POV to mention the Nobel in the first sentence, though I could see some people might feel that way. I think the lead guidelines aren't definitive on this point, so I would leave it to consensus of the editors at the article and in any review processes such as PR or FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
You make good points (BTW, another editor I just spoke pointed me to WP:Notability for how X-winning establishes notability), but should even "recognised" (although I rather think it conveys a sense of "good") be implied in the first sentence? I'm just for a completely neutral, zero implication first sentence that firmly establishes the basics of the subject in the reader's mind. Leads obviously mention prizes later on. indopug (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your argument is reasonable, but it's going to be a spectrum. I looked at some FA bios: Johannes Kepler asserts Kepler's importance in the first sentence; Robert A. Heinlein does not. Sargon of Akkad does, Offa of Mercia doesn't. By and large it seems more don't assert importance than do -- I checked a few others and mostly they don't. Of course an assertion of importance isn't the same as mentioning an award, but in the case of the Nobel prize I think it amounts to much the same thing. All of which adds up to perhaps a slight bias in the direction of not mentioning it, but I wouldn't say it's compulsory. Mike Christie (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Another problem with listing awards in the first sentence is that if they are listed you are automatically assuming the reader knows what the award is, and you are basically saying said honor is Very Important. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, that argument is a bit silly. Who does not know that the Nobel Prize is very important? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should I know that the Noble Prize is important in the first place when I'm not reading an article about the award itself? Specifically, why is it so important that it should be one of the first things I know about a person when reading their article, along with their name, dates of birth and death, and occupation? Awards can always be listed later in the lead. Don't say "Dude won important award; here's stuff he did", say "Dude did stuff, which resulted in these awards". It's more logical and doesn't make assumptions about the readers. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
'Cause there is a culturally predetermined set of knowledge norms...like king, president, Oscar and a whole huge bag of knowledge that is common to all of us. We can presume some things are common knowledge. Arguing the possibility that the reader is ignorant of the Nobel Prize or the Oscar or does not know what is a king or president assumes our reader is tabula rasa. Even a fifth grader knows this stuff. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
That does not mean it should be in the first sentence. There's a few things at play here: the implied POV mentioned by Indopug, assumptions made about the general reader (which is what all wiki articles are aimed at) and the last point I've been alluding to but haven't outright said: brilliant prose. As I pointed out above, indicating "Dude did stuff, which resulted in these awards" instead "Dude won important award; here's stuff he did" gives the award context, it flows better, and it reads more logically. Indopug and I work primarily on music articles. I personally remove items like "Grammy Award-winning" or "Brit Award-winning" from the first sentence of an article because of the implied importance of the award, because most often awards are country and region specific (so even if you read English you might not understand what the hell's the big deal about winning a given award) and because it can (and will) probably be discussed in-depth and with better context later in the lead section. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
And in the case of this particular article, his Nobel Prize achievement is mentioned in an appropriate context later in the lead, so there's no reason to include it in the first sentence. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM, the style guideline for film articles, might be of interest here - it suggests that notable awards should be mentioned in the lede section, but not as an adjective in the opening sentence, per Wesley above. Skomorokh 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bottom

This edit caused the bottom of the article to stop displaying (categories, references, etc.). I can't figure it out. –Outriggr § 05:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks OK to me. Is it you who's crazy or is it me?  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You did give me the barnstar of madness, so it must be me... what's happening is that it appears normally in Internet Explorer, but it's cut off in my Firefox 2.0.0.14. –Outriggr § 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm using Firefox (the same version, but for Mac), and still don't see anything. I'm not sure what to say... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA review: Is anyone watching this article?

I have several problems with the writing, but am a bit reluctant to dive in and start editing... Ling.Nut (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jb. Because I'm lazy, I used comments within the text rather than copy/pasting stuff here and commenting on it. I'm gonna go to bed now; will look at this again in a few hours. I may also have more comments later.. Cheers! Ling.Nut (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw. Will get to this at the weekend. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm also still watchlisting this. Geometry guy 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA on Hold

  • The GA nom of this article is On Hold for a period of up to one week. Multiple issues have been noted in comment format in article space, and dedicated editors are aware of the discussion. I also reserve the right, of course, to point out further issues as the revision progresses... I'll check in again in a couple days...
  • I'm not gonna put an On Hold template on WP:GAN, because I think those templates (and others on that page) should roast in hell :-) However, if anyone else wants to place the template there, of course I wouldn't do anything as childish as remove it. :-)
  • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Ling.Nut. I hope to get hold of some decent sources in the next few days and work on the issues your raise inline. I wonder, however, if you might be able to make a couple of brief general comments here on the talk page? (Heh, you'll see that your review style was sufficiently unorthodox that another editor tried to revert your edits to the article!) It might also be good for future documentation, whether this article ultimately fails or passes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't plow through all the references like I should have—I'll leave that for WP:FAC. I also didn't check the licensing on the images like I should have. I could do that soon; just takes a sec. The reason I didn't do those things is because the prose issues seemed more urgent. The biggest problem seem to be a lack of coherence. The entire article looks as though it has been written by someone who is or has become so familiar with the subject matter that he/she mentally fills in gaps in the info, without even noticing that the gaps exist. Classic blind spot. There are also a very few problems that some people could construe to be WP:NPOV violations (such as calling one leader a "dictator", and another "democratically elected"... both may be true, but both need to be verified. I also plan to return to the WP:LEDE in a day or two, after the info has percolated in my brain for a while, to see if it needs any further work. I know that some folks are anti-cite when it comes to the lede, but some of the info there (and throughout the article, in fact) really really tempted me to {{fact}} tag it... Sorry if I am putting too fine a point on things. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
In view of the repeated reversions of Ling's inline comments in the article, here is a link to an edit window for the latest version with comments. I suggest opening this in a separate tab (and not saving) when addressing these many helpful comments. I hope that this is an acceptable compromise. It would be a pity to have a revert war over such a trivial matter. Geometry guy 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This is yet another example of why I wrote the bottom half of my user page. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA: Fail

Unfortunately, too much time has elapsed since it was put on Hold... I really appreciate all the hard work that has been put into this article— as is very clear from the depth of its content. I sincerely hope it will go thru GAC again soon and rec'v a GA Pass. Keep up the good work! Ling.Nut (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)