Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa

Mario Vargas Llosa

• Featured article candidates/Mario Vargas Llosa

• Featured article review/Mario Vargas Llosa/archive1

I'm co-nominating this article for featured article because I believe that it satisfies the criteria for Wikipedia's Featured Articles. It is a thorough, fluent, and well-researched account of one of the most important authors of contemporary Latin American and world literature. The article is the result of an immense amount of work, above all by my co-nominators, with the generous aid of the FA-Team. The editors actively seek your suggestions for further improvement. Thank you. Co-nom: User:Isabel-clase, User:lincolnchan98, User:tommaso88. jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Article stats

Lincolnchan98 394

Tommaso88 167

Jbmurray 166

Acer 88

Geometry guy 44

Awadewit 42

Karanacs 30

Kaldari 24

Isabel-clase 22

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:59, April 14, 2008 (UTC)

• Support Disclaimer: I have copy edited and reviewed this article recently. This is a well-written, well-organized, well-researched, and well-illustrated article. I am happy to support this fine biography of an important Latin American writer - another excellent article from the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. I would like to thank the editors for all of their hard work and for their willingness to continually revise and to work towards the highest standards. Awadewit (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Remember how you promised me you'd remove the JSTOR, etc. links per WP:LINKSTOAVOID? Awadewit (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I am concerned if other readers with JSTOR access cannot follow the links. But, and I recognize that this may not be the time and the place for this discussion, in general I'd like to argue fairly strongly for such links. It seems to me that these are, as it were, "bonus" links. It is not that they could be replaced with other, more accessible, links. So while it is true that only a minority of readers can follow them, for those users they are extraordinarily helpful, as they get them straight to the source in question. Whereas readers who are not so fortunate are no worse off than if the links were not there.
• I do, however, agree that there should be some kind of warning. And if there's no field within the citation template, I can add such a warning in plain text after each link. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jbmurray, as I understand it, only the people logged in at your university can use those links. That is a real minority. If other people, like myself, with JSTOR and EBSCO access cannot use these links, they are next to useless. (Just to be absolutely clear - I'm clicked on them and they don't work for me - I get a message saying I'm not authorized to view the article.) Awadewit (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. Obviously that would invalidate the inclusion of those links. My parochialism and my support for minority rights is not so very limited! I'd get rid of them immediately. But I'm a little puzzled. Anyone who is logged into a network that has such rights (even by proxy, as I am when I am at home as now) should be able to access those links; there's nothing about them that is unique to UBC or indeed any other university. Perhaps we could do a little testing (and report back on the talk page?) from other users who can otherwise generally gain access to such databases. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR is widely used in academia, with many universities supporting it. I think it is entirely appropriate to link to JSTOR in articles with academic content. I'm surprised there are problems linking to these particular articles: I will see tomorrow if I can access them from my university. Geometry guy 23:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I am able to follow these links seamlessly and am not attending UBC. I !vote keep. Wrad (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can too, and am in a different country. (JSTOR has quite recently changed format; this may be part of whatever problem there is.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that only thousands of people are subscribed through universities (which hopefully work better than mine) while millions of people view the site subscriptionless. Let's not irritate the millions. Awadewit (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is a purely hypothetical problem until one of those millions speaks up; and even then, they are not being hurt unless (as is most unlikely) there is a free link to Latin American Research Review which we are omitting. As one of the tens of thousands who can link, I am merely grateful not to be forced to search for the article again — this is the purpose of convenience links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as one of the people who can't use the links, I am speaking up. It is annoying. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(←) It is annoying when one can't access the article, sure, but removing the link would not solve that problem. "Not annoying some readers" is not part of Wikipedia's five pillars, nor is it a featured article criterion. Of course we should not have spamlinks, and if this were a link to an expensive publisher's online site to which very few can afford to subscribe (I won't mention any names: you know who I am talking about!) then I would support removing the links with enthusiasm. However, this isn't the case with JSTOR, which is widely supported by many universities, and probably other institutions such as some public libraries: it provides access to old material which has limited commercial value.

I also find the rhetorical figures of thousands, tens of thousands and millions unhelpful. My university alone provides JSTOR access to over 10000 people (I checked the links) and so, given the number of universities in the UK, among 60 million citizens, approximately one percent (half a million or so) may well have access to JSTOR. Furthermore, those who are likely to be interested in this article are particularly likely to belong to this fraction. I expect the case in North America is similar.

In an encyclopedia, providing readers with information is far more important than avoiding annoying them. The link could be removed for the purposes of this FAC, but it will just be readded later, and I doubt anyone would want to take an article to FAR over such a link. So I don't see any case for removing it now. Geometry guy 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I seem to be in the minority of my interpretation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID here. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If this were a bureacracy and I were a lawyer, then I would agree with your interpretation. However, WP:LINKSTOAVOID is a guideline (subject to common sense and the occasional exception): guidelines (and even policy) reflect consensus, they do not determine it. I would encourage more of Wikipedia's best editors, such as yourself, to stand up to those who believe that guidelines are there to tell editors how to make this a better encyclopedia. They are not: making this a better encyclopedia is something we can all judge for ourselves, and consensus is how we reconcile our differing views. Policy and guidelines provide a framework to acheive this consensus, but they don't determine it. Geometry guy 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And in pure Wikilawyering terms, WP:EL says two things about this subject. The short version says not to link to pay sites, but links to the long version (I just moved the link for clarity, but it existed before); the long version says A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article or is being used as an inline reference. These are inline references, and the full guidance should take precedence of the one-sentence summary.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, that was me conceding to the consensus - sorry it wasn't clearer. Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two of us. I think GG and I are right, but we certainly aren't consensus if somebody agrees with Awadewit's expressed position. Until someone does, let's move on... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There are four of you, by the way. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As co-nominator and a significant contributor, my support may seem obvious and/or superfluous. However I would like to take this opportunity to say that the vast bulk of the credit here has to go to my co-nominators, who have put in all the hard work, not only in searching for sources, but also most recently in undertaking an audacious (and in my view, very successful) wholesale revision of the article structure. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 59 is just a bald link to an external website, it's lacking formatting and publisher and last access date.

All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed that. Thanks for pointing the problem out. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Congratulations to the authors. Unless I'm mistaken, the article doesn't describe how Vargas Llosa contributed to "The New Novel (La Nueva Novela)", or tell me what the New Novel signified. The concept bookends the article, in the lead and in "Legacy", but ¿dónde está la carne? (apologies for that!). An answer to that may help with the other goal, to expand the section on his legacy. A smaller point: the sentence beginning "Vargas Llosa wrote of Arguedas's that it was..." seems to be missing a word, or else the implied thing being possessed is just not clear to me. –Outriggr § 02:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Outrigger, thank you kindly for pointing that out. Perhaps the section on The New Novel could be expanded. I'll have a look around to see if I can find some more "carne" for it (I love Wendy's by the way). And thank you for pointing out the missing word, I have fixed that. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Issue went to talk page Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose because the main source of information is in Spanish, without any translation, and there is no way for me to verify their credibility, thus, there is no way for a large bulk of English Wikipedia users to verify the information. Blind faith is not acceptable for a FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - Condition: direct quotes with translations provided for verification are provided so that at least 90% of the sources can be potential read/interpreted by all users. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Question - Are these originally in Spanish - Armas, Boland, Campos, Fernández, Igartua, Lamb, Morote, Setti, Vargas Llosa, Williams? If so, I can't in good faith approve of this article. Wikipedia English relies on English sources so that others can verify them. Foreign language sources should be used only in rare cases. The sources I listed make up most of your references. I cannot check them, therefore, they don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability criteria. If you can find an English translation of your sources, please do. If not, then I will be forced to oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid oppose. While English language sources are preferred, they are not always the best (i.e., most comprehensive) sources nor are they always available. Vargas Llosa is a Latin American novelist, and it stands to reason that much of the literary criticism and biographies of him would be in Spanish, his native language and the language of his novels. The sources used can be verified, they will just need to be translated. Karanacs (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Definitely not a valid oppose. The best sources should be the ones used, and those happen to be Spanish. Wrad (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Its not an oppose, its a question. Furthermore, verifiability has always been a valid use. English Wikipedia requires English sources. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources You have to follow these guidelines: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." Furthermore, primary editors are not allowed to say a "question" is not "a valid oppose". Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Considering we have had expert in the field consulting on this article (Jbmurray) and every effort has been made to find sources in both English and Spanish, I think we can be assured that the research is exhaustive here. This issue was raised on the FA-Team talk page somewhere as an over-riding issue for all of the articles in the Murder, Madness, and Mayhem project. It was decided that English sources would be preferred, but Spanish sources would be brought in when necessary. As Karanacs makes clear, much of the scholarship written on this Latin American writer is going to be in Spanish - we should not exclude it because it is in Spanish. If we are lucky enough to have editors who can read the scholarship and include information from it, we should do so. The article will better fulfill the comprehensiveness and reliable source criteria. Jbmurray provided translations for another article - perhaps he would be willing to do so again if we asked politely. Awadewit (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A self testified expert does not justify the use of a foreign language link that the mass of Wikipedians can verify. There are guidelines to foreign sources, and the page has not shown that it is attempting to meet those guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you ask politely, well, of course I would!  :)

• As someone who is not a primary editor of the article (though Primary editors most certainly can bring up concerns that an oppose isn't valid), I agree with Awadewit. Spanish sources aren't a valid reason to oppose unless it can be shown that there are English sources out there that are equivalent or better. Given the subject matter, I find it highly likely that the best sources would be Spanish and take Awadewit's word that thorough work has been done. Wrad (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, foreign language sources need to have direct quotes with direct translation per the verifiability rules. Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia for a reason. It will be perfectly acceptable on the Spanish Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray has just kindly offered above to do the translations you requested. Awadewit (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then there will be no other objections from me after such is done. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This seems a bit extreme. I would ask Rima to point out exactly what is likely to be challenged that needs translation so badly. Wrad (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, when a significant amount of sources are used that cannot be verified, then every single bit quoted by them the whole thing is automatically challenged. Wikipedia is not "take my word for it, this says ___ in that other language that you can't read". I don't really understand what is so difficult in providing English sources, and if there aren't any, then maybe it is not warranting such a large page on the English Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I will be happy to translate anything that anybody deems needs translating. As the stipulation is that the text be available (in a footnote) in the original Spanish as well as in the English translation, then other editors who speak Spanish (SandyGeorgia, for instance, but surely many more) will be able to make changes to my translation should they find it lacking in any way. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 08:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes needing to be translated -

"3" is used for biographical information and needs to be translated. As with "13" to "21". Wikipedia's section would probably be the primarily English source of this information, so it needs to be verifiable. I say this, because I assume that there isn't an English biography on the topic. If there is one, it should be added.

"29" deals with awards, and are only in Spanish. This should have a translation. The line "they have not spoken to each other in more than 30 years." needs a source, preferably with translation. Second use of "29" (i.e. "Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship") definitely needs a translation.

This continues with (""That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."[34]"), an English quote from a Spanish text. If this is a translation, please put the original Spanish somewhere. Perhaps this could be avoided if Cohen supports enough of the idea ("37"), and then he can be used as simultaneous evidence for the claims.

For "43" ("From 1974 to 1987, Vargas Llosa focused primarily on his occupation as a writer; nevertheless, he still took time to pursue other endeavors.[43]") what is the Spanish ref quoting? What "other endeavors"? "44" Deals with more biography that should be reffed. You refer to some large institutions, so it would be good to have solid proof.

The rest is acceptable as a minority problem and unnecessary if the above are addressed. They seem to be the ones that could cause the most contention. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any of those other than 43 and 29 are likely to be challenged. Simple Biographical information (he was born here, he worked here) is not usually seen as controversial. Wrad (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference numbers are dynamic, and could change between the time one editor types them and another reads them; pls try to refer to the actual reference text along with the number to make it easier on everyone to follow. Example, Ref no. xx, Author, page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sandy, but you are asking for something that demands far too much complication than necessary for the review process. The reviewing editor can easily place my time stamp with the history of the page to find it. Wikipedia demands that foreign language material needs to be verifiable, and to put such burden upon me does not reflect any of the spirit of these rules, especially when you, as a moderator of this forum, should have known better to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rima, this childish attitude has got to stop. Please don't address Sandy in that manner. After looking over the two refs I thought might be likely to be challenged a bit closer, I really don't see how either of them are controversial in any way. I thus don't think any translations are needed here, though it seems as though jbmurray is doing it anyway. It is apparent to me that you are trying to get back at murray for that dispute several days ago by making ridiculous demands. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at first, but the closer I look at your objections, the more obvious it becomes to me that you are blinded by your desire to get revenge on murray. This article meets the FA criteria. Wrad (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, "childish" is an incivil characterization. Furthermore, your comments from the beginning have been combative. If you wish to continue with such actions, I will be forced to report you for incivility. Furthermore, "revenge" on a user for a page? No. No one owns the page. Your opinion is one opinion. You have different standards than the rest of the community. Everyone does. This is for the community. You cannot bully and POV push to win an argument. If you are unwilling to stop, then say so, and that will be used as evidence to your uncivility. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia putting on its best face for the newbies, isn't it? Perhaps we could just put a moratorium on the comments until Jbmurray has added the translations. If Ottava Rima isn't satisfied, then we can continue the discussion. Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed. According to his/her userpage, Ottava Rima can read Spanish. S/he also informed me that s/he has access to three university libraries. Any help on the translations would, of course, be appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent), Ottava Rima, I asked that you please refer to something specific when you mention a ref in an Oppose because by the time other editors get to check the text to evaluate your oppose, the ref numbers may have changed. You said refs, "3" and "13" to "21" need translation; without a specific example of what text you are challenging, that's hard to evaluate. "29" deals with awards, and are only in Spanish. This should have a translation. I agree and have left an English source on the talk page. The line "they have not spoken to each other in more than 30 years." needs a source, preferably with translation. Second use of "29" (i.e. "Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship") definitely needs a translation. Because this is a WP:BLP and because the text deals with an interpersonal issue, yes, we should have the original text and translation on this in a footnote. I was unable to locate anything in English. "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."[34]"), an English quote from a Spanish text. Agree that policy says that direct quotes need to show original Spanish text in the footnote. Aside: the editors have had some confusion about how to add text such as (Fee required) to their citation system: you can add anything between ref tags, just put it after the Harvard stuff or the citation template, but inside the ref tag. For "43" ("From 1974 to 1987, Vargas Llosa focused primarily on his occupation as a writer; nevertheless, he still took time to pursue other endeavors.[43]") what is the Spanish ref quoting? What "other endeavors"? I'm not clear on what text is being challenged here or why. "44" Deals with more biography that should be reffed. You refer to some large institutions, so it would be good to have solid proof. I do not know what you're challenging here either. You don't have to respond to my polite request or put the information forward in a way that's easy for me and other editors to understand if you don't want to, but we do need to be able to evaluate and understand your Oppose and the ref numbers do change each time text is moved or added, so by the time other editors can check the ref numbers you mention, we may be checking the wrong thing. Perhaps you will spell all of this out on the article talk page, where I started a section with the English source for the Romulo Gallegos award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC

Sandy, this is most helpful. I'm about to go out, but will get to these later tonight. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 23:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope your students, who are probably involved in final exams, understand there is no urgency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and thanks again. --jbmurray (talk contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an issue: I was getting going on this list, and just about to add the English language source for the Rómulo Gallegos awards, but egads! I know it's an official site, from the Venezuelan government, specifically the Ministry of Culture, but it's in horrible English, obviously mistranslated from a Spanish original. A taster: "In this opportunity the prize consisted in one hundred thousand Bolívares (Bs. 100.000), in addition, a medal made in golden and one diploma. It was thirteen jurors, distributed between every Hispanic speech countries, whose referred their verdict to an international panel of judges..." Etc. etc. Is linking to poor translations (however official) really an improvement on linking to (and where necessary, translating from) Spanish sites? --jbmurray (talk contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"You said refs, "3" and "13" to "21" need translation; without a specific example of what text you are challenging" Except that the text covers the majority of information at the top. Dates, times, meeting who, what, when, where. Those are all information that needs to be cited in a verifiable source. If you notice, most of the references cover multiple sections. If this was one or two things, I could see it as a reasonable request to copy and paste exact lines, but when there are blocks and blocks of biographical information from the same few sources, that becomes very messy. Most problematic would be the texts involving fights with Marquez. Some is in English, some is not.

On individual points - "I'm not clear on what text is being challenged here or why." The text being challenged is "pursue other endeavors." So, the source said that he "pursued other endeavors" or did the source list those endeavors and the writers are summarizing the source? What does the source even say that leads to such a conclusion, because I am sure "endeavors" is not a Spanish word, so it probably does not appear in the text.

On another - "I do not know what you're challenging here either." I was challenging the various academic institutions cited as places he visited. Obviously, if he visited them there would have to be some mention of it in another language besides Spanish, or at least for those outside of Spanish speaking countries.

I will take the time and go through each and every Spanish link if you want and explain the danger of not having a translation. However, there will be over 50 objections, and I feel that such a thing is ultimately unnecessary when the biographical details could be easily translated or directly cited in some manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the issue regarding foreign language sources, this is much less of a barrier than it was in the past. Google Translation will translate for you. They should probably use that to beef up some of the foreign language Wikipedias. -maclean 02:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Yet again, the WP:MMM project has produced another quality article on the scope of Latin American literature. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't read through the article yet, but unless there are direct quotes being taken from Spanish-language sources, footnote translations are not necessary. If the issue is about accessibility of sources, consider that most readers do not have access to even most English-language sources used. If the issue is about the translation itself (assuming the reader has the book in hand), there are plenty of Spanish-speaking Wikipedians that could verify the translation (indeed, how is this better than an involved Wikipedian translating it in advance?), plus Babelfish, plus wordreference.com and so many other online tools that make it a breeze to translate from Spanish to English. The policy language about quotations in footnotes is new. See the discussion at WP:V that led to its addition--even there, editors emphasized that this shouldn't mean those using non-English sources have to quote from sources they're using for basic facts and were concerned that any strict translation requirement would contribute to systemic bias. Mangostar (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• And, in everyone's defense, the change was made after the February 5 discussion with the FA-Team, and apparently no one noticed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia's defense, there is a Spanish Wikipedia for Spanish language pages. Verifiability means just that. A foreign language lacks verifiability unless there can be a direct translation. I don't see why you are unwilling to move in such a direction, and I ask that you refrain from acting in such a way, Sandy, because there is a conflict of interest as you spent quite a lot of time dealing with the page. This is for objective criticism, and your comments are, by definition, subjective based on your involvement. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit hypocritical of you to accuse her of conflict of interest when the only reason you are here is to make sure all of jbmurray's FACs are miserable because of some silly dispute a few days ago. Wrad (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are unable or unwilling to follow WP:AGF, then maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Such comments are uncivil and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This article is well written and well sourced. Finally does justice to one of the great Latin-American writers out there. NickMar206 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent, excellent work. Comprehensive and scintillating prose, in my opinion this is a great addition to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Very well written and intriguing article about an important literary figure. I'm so glad that Hispanic lit is getting its due here on the English Wikipedia! Wonderful work, everyone. As for the concerns about Spanish sources, I cannot say that it bothers me. It's guideline, not policy, that states a preference for English sources; if no English language sources are available, then other language sources suffice. A compromise of including several translations via footnotes may be the way to go, but I don't think even that is necessary. BTW, this very issue was brought up on the Spanish Wikipedia when the Knut (polar bear)'s Spanish counterpart (Knut (oso bear)), a translation of the FA English version that uses a majority of the original English sources, before it was put up for candidatos a artículos destacados. Sure, a polar bear cub is arguably less important than a world famous and highly respected writer, but if Spanish editors aren't complaining about a source's language, why should we? :) (Only partly kidding with that last bit...) María (habla conmigo) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:V is policy, not guideline. But it refers to material likely to be challenged and direct quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• This is me, standing corrected. Original point still stands alongside me, however. María (habla conmigo) 16:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This article has come a long way since it's Good Article nomination back in March. The reorganization makes it much more compelling to read all the way through (and less redundant). My only criticism is that the non-English references should indicate what language they are in. This can normally be accomplished by adding "language=Spanish" or whatever to the citation template. I would do it myself, but I'm not 100% sure all the non-English sources are Spanish (some could be Portuguese, although I imagine that's quite unlikely). I would be more comfortable if someone familiar with the sources would do it. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support I've come to the conclusion that none of the references fit the criteria for "likely to be challenged" in a way that makes me think they need translations. If murray wants to go above and beyond the call of duty to translate things that really don't need it, then I applaud him for it. It is apparent to me that Rima is applying the criteria in an extreme way in order to get revenge on Awadewit and jbmurray for a silly misunderstanding awhile ago. I had hoped that editors at FAC would be mature enough to set aside grudges. I'm really getting sick of the way he's treating people on here. It's no wonder people hate the FA process.

Just a note: "likely to be challenged" does not mean "one person challenges it". It is determined by consensus whether or not something, for some special reason, is likely to be controversial. Just because something is in another language does not make it controversial. You must find another reason to ask for a translation besides "it's in Spanish." Otherwise, why would they have the line about it's being likely to be challenged. Wrad (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As Wrad notes, Ottava Rima and I had some differences a few days ago, over an article that s/he had nominated to FAC, which subsequently failed that process. A number of other editors became caught up in the subsequent dispute. It's also worth commenting that Ottava Rima has had rather similar differences, on rather similar topics and for rather similar reasons, with Awadewit, as well as a couple of other editors. I would rather that such earlier disputes do not overwhelm this discussion, which should be focussed on the fine job done by a group of student editors in bringing this article, Mario Vargas Llosa, to the stage where it can even be considered for Featured Article Candidacy. I am perfectly happy to listen to Ottava Rima's suggestions for improvement, and if there is consensus from other commenters here, I am more than willing to do what I can to implement those suggestions. Personally, I feel that's all that needs saying about the matter. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Jb - What other people don't realize is that I am one voice. Consensus has already supported your project. Therefore, my objections are in the minority, which means that anyone taking offense to them does not understand how the process works. I have already put forth a conditional support, so the accusations against me appear to be unnecessary. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a majority rules process. I checked to see if your concerns were legit. If they were, it wouldn't be an FA, even if you were only one voice. You seem to be attacking the people who are willing to give you some ground. Sandy and I were among the few who were willing to admit you might have something. I really don't see why you are so hostile and rude to Sandy, especially, when she really hasn't said anything against you here and seemed to agree with you more than most anyone. But, alas, whatever ground you might have gained seems to have been lost now. Wrad (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Attacking people? The person who is doing the attacking is yourself. You are being extremely uncivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Disclaimer: Significant contributor, see list above. First off I'd like to congratulate everybody who worked on this and especially Lincolnchan98 for all the work he put into it. Now about all the discussion that has been going on around here, I'd say that everybodys opinion has been stated and noted by everybody else, theres no need to continue with it. Lets refocus on the article shall we? Now Outrigger raised a very good point above about the lack of information concerning the new novel. I had managed to completely miss this shortcoming despite reading the article a few times to say the least (this just goes to show how usefull it is to have uninvolved eyes doing a review). This is certanly important and needs to be adressed. That said, I'm still supporting because I think the article is quite comprehensive even with this fault and also, because I don't think the issue is going to be too hard to solve. Acer (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - aside from the glossing over of his contributions to the development of La Nueva Novela mentioned by Outriggr, it seems comprehensive. However, there are problems with some of the language and agreement between sections. Some of these might be remedied by a simple rephrasing to make the meaning clear or some formatting, but some need a little more work. I'd recommend another run though the copy if possible. There's nothing major though and I'll be happy to support if these examples are cleared up:

• In "Later life and political involvement" we have Vargas Llosa has identified himself with right-wing political ideologies ever since. while in "Later life and political involvement" we have certain conservative views held by the former party are at odds with his liberal beliefs.
• He married Julia Urquidi, his uncle's sister-in-law - this is his aunt's sister, isn't it? Why add an extra level of relationship?
  • This should be clarified; but I expect the answer to Yomangani's question to be no: the text is compatible with (and so implies that) the uncle being already an uncle by marriage. The uncle's name would be the simplest way to fix this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• His involvement in the Investigatory Commission is split over two sections. It was reintroduced in the second section before I cut that, but it is still awkward.
• What was his next novel after the Investigatory Commission work? Who Killed Palomino Molero or Death in the Andes? The use of subsequent for Death in the Andes is confusing here, as is the split over two sections with the two sections claiming that both the books were inspired by the work on the Investigatory Commission.

• This is a good question. I added (and sourced) the information about Death in the Andes. I have never read Who Killed Palomino Molero?, and wasn't aware of any Uchuraccay link. Lincolnchan98, can you double check this source? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is what the Kristal book says: "His novel is by no means an attempt to reconstruct the Ucharaccay incidents. It can be read, as Roy Boland has shown, as a literary exorcism of his own experiences on the commission." Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• led to immediate negative reactions and slandering from the Peruvian press - were the negative reactions from the press as well or just the slandering? Was it defamation rather than slander?

Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa continued to write significantly shorter pieces of work - continued? shorter than what? signifying what?

Fixed I think Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why is "The Green House" in quotation marks and the Cathedral not? Why is Investigatory Commission italicised? Why is the Popular Action party rendered in English while the other parties retain their Spanish names? Why is National University of San Marcos in English and Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spanish? Why is Premio de la Crítica italicised when all the other prizes are not?

put cathedral in quotations. translated universidad to english. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Igartua states that after knocking García Márquez out, leaving him on the floor, Vargas Llosa said: "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona." - this isn't clear. Was he knocked down and left unconscious by the punch in the face? The quote has no context, so doesn't add anything.
• which is being re-released in Spain and throughout Latin America - right now? A date would be handy here. Yomangani^talk 23:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Yomangan for bringing these issues to attention. I have tried to fix some but confess that I am neither a language expert nor very familiar with MoS issues. Any help would be appreciated. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on to some more of these later today. (Apologies that I was somewhat AWOL yesterday.) Lincolnchan98, it might help if you indicated here which of these issues you've been able to address. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)