Jump to content

Talk:Latin American Boom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rabbitfast (talk | contribs) at 05:29, 4 April 2008 (→Team work). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The {{GAN}} template should be substituted at the top of the article talk page.

Template:MuMaMa

Borges

Why isn't he listed as one of the major representatives of the boom? Gatherton 06:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't one. --Jbmurray 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me why he isn't one of the major representatives? Gatherton 21:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he's not a member of the Boom. You might want to say he's a precursor, but he's not a Boom writer. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I came here to ask the very same question. I see that Borges' writing is very different from those listed here in the Boom; but if the Boom authors are defined only as writers active mid-20th century in Latin America, then he would seem to fit the description, no? Perhaps the thing to do would be to give a more restrictive definition, and to provide a published reference stating it explicitly? We might also want to devote a sentence or two to explaining why Borges doesn't fit the description, since some people are bound to wonder, even if we do provide a more specific definition. Those would be my desiderata at least, as an unabashed fan of both Borges and Laura Esquivel.  :) Hoping these suggestions are helpful, Willow (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement

This article needs to be significantly improved. --Jbmurray 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 11:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Team work

Hello Darja, I think this article is going to be one the featured articles!!, this week I have many essays and mid terms exams so I will be a little busy but do you think we can meet us some day of the weekend or on the next week. Hope to hear from you soon so that we can achieve this. --Miriamcc (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)miriam--Miriamcc (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm working on the Dictator novel. If you guys are interested in more collaboration, perhaps we could work together in some way. Sharing sources could be a good way..let me know what you think about this!--Abarratt (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

of course we will appreciate your help on any source or anything you want to add to this article please feel free. thanks! miriam128.189.171.205 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam, just a note to ask you to please make sure you are signed in when you are editing. That makes it easier for others to see that it's you who's been working on the article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Miriam, I was just wondering if you got the email I sent yesterday about the Pope references? I don't have that book so I don't know what page numbers the article is on.--Rabbitfast (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Miriam, can you please add the ISBNs for the Pope and Donoso references, plus page numbers for Pope.

Article development

Hi all! I hope you don't mind - I've just been through the article and "wikified" it a bit, formatting a couple of in-line citations and tweaking the layout and section headings to conform with the dreaded Manual of Style. As you continue to add sourced content, you can either copy the markup I've used or, if you don't feel confident about reference formatting, just add the sources any way you see fit (in brackets is fine). We're quite happy to drop by every now and then and do the technical stuff ;) Any problems, questions, etc, just shout! EyeSereneTALK 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this reply is a little post festum but thanks :)--Rabbitfast (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw reference(s)

I note that some of the inline citations (footnotes) refer to "Shaw 1994." Is this then a different text from the 1998 book referenced below? This needs to be clarified. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is indeed a different text--I added the 1994 article to the References list a couple of hours ago. --Rabbitfast (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous. The next thing is to make clear in the footnotes which text you're referring to each time. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tag

If the 'citation needed' tags are cleared up, this article is probably advanced enough to be considered for a GA nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur - it's quite an impressive piece of research. If you feel ready for nomination, go for it ;) I realise time is fast vanishing, so since I've been only marginally involved in this one I'd be happy to review if no-one picks up the gauntlet! EyeSerenetalk 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be bold and delete the sentences with the citation tags. I'll GA nom 'Latin American Boom'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

I don't think this chronology is needed any more. It was basically a placeholder previously, when there wasn't a proper article here. I'm moving it over, however, as there are still some things there that could be expanded in the body of the text: Rodriguez Monegal and Mundo Nuevo, for instance. So here it is...

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Won't finish GA review tonight but ...

I'm not going to be able to finish the GA review tonight; I should be able to tomorrow night at the latest. So far it looks like a good piece of research, but there are some issues. Here are some quick observations if you have time to work on them before I can write up a detailed review:

  • There are some uncited paragraphs; a good rule is at least one citation per paragraph. I wouldn't fail GA for a short uncited paragraph with completely uncontroversial statements, but it would be worth going through and looking for cites where possible.
  • I'd suggest using English names for the novels; if they've never been translated use the Spanish names
  • One-sentence paragraphs are usually best combined with an adjacent paragraph
  • The Impact and Critique sections are too short to justify a separate section; I'd lengthen these or merge them with adjacent sections.
  • It's good to introduce critics with their role, rather than just naming them: "Indeed, critic Frederick M. Nunn writes" rather than "Indeed, Frederick M. Nunn writes".
  • There are some question-marks in the footnotes and references that should be cleaned up.

More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Hold

I'm placing this article on GA hold for seven days. Here's my assessment of the article per the criteria at WP:WIAGA.

1. Well-written:

a) Prose, spelling and grammar: fail. I think it's pretty close here; I'll do a copyedit pass and see how it goes. There's nothing seriously wrong here though the writing could be improved.

b) MOS compliance: fail. The main problem is the very short sections "Critique" and "Impact". I think some one-sentence paragraphs have been cleaned up, but at least one remains. The tone occasionally strays into unencyclopaedic territory; I'll see if I can do something about this in the copyedit. Example: "In this novel he gathers hate, and violence, proper elements of a city." If this is a critic's opinion it should be cited; if it's the opinion of an editor of the article, it needs to be made blander: it expresses an opinion with "proper".

2. Factually accurate and verifiable:

a) References: fail. There are some question marks in the footnotes and reference list; fix those and this is a pass.

b) Citations: fail. There are a few places where a citation is needed. The Magical Realism paragraph, for example, gives a sufficiently detailed description of the genre, include comments about its origin and aesthetic, that I think a critical source should be cited. However, the article is generally well-cited and there are not many holes.

c) No original research: pass. I am assuming that the uncited material is just that, not original research.

3. Broad coverage.

a) Addresses the major aspects of the topic: pass. I think this is a pass, though I'm not familiar with the material. If those two short sections can be expanded that would make me more comfortable with this, but I believe it's a pass.

b) Stays focused: pass.

4. Neutral: pass.

5. Stable: pass.

6. Image use: pass.

I'll work on a copyedit and post any notes in another section below. Mike Christie (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latin_American_Boom&oldid=203227159"