Talk:The General in His Labyrinth

Unattributed material

Article reverted because of addition of un-attributed material from [1], which has the following notice: "This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Tech. Write to archive@the-tech.mit.edu for additional details." -- Dalbury^(Talk) 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Note

... to those involved in Murder, Madness, and Mayhem

Please be sure that you're logged in when you edit this page. It is technically possible to edit anyway, but it would help a lot if you make sure you are always in fact logged in. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read our manual of style before making changes to this article. I just reverted changes that replaced section headings and created empty sections. I recommend that you read "Section headings" and "Section management" before making changes to section headings. -- Donald Albury 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't necessary or required to read the manual of style (MoS) before editing Wikipedia, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". If you add useful content or your edit improves the article in some way, but does not comply with the manual of style, then that's fine: someone else will probably fix the MoS issues later. If everyone had to read the huge and constantly changing MoS first, there would be no articles on Wikipedia! Geometry guy 09:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone had just renamed sections and added a bunch of empty section headings to the article, which was not useful content, not did it improve the article. -- Donald Albury 12:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newbies. I understand your concern, though. Wrad (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical context?

This article might benefit from a "Historical context" section, even before the plot. Many readers will be unaware of the rich history in which this novel is steeped, and it'd help to understand the plot summary if the historical facts were covered first. Perhaps you could set the story in context with 2-3 paragraphs, mentioning that Spain was powerful nation with excellent trade/colonies based on its sea power (even after the defeat of the Armada) and maybe compare the liberations in Latin America with the American revolution? Anyway, just a suggestion, Willow (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point, given that it's a historical novel. Then it will also be easier to see what GGM draws out of the historical material he's using. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good point. THanks for the suggestion Carlaty (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carla and I have decided to name this major section "Background Information", with 2 subsections: "Latin American History" and "Simon Bolivar", which will have 5 more sub-subsections (The Wars associated with each country he has liberated.)Eshiu (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviews Section?

We were thinking of adding a section at the bottom of the page that has quotes of reviews of the book. If we cite each quote, can we do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. "Reception" is one common header used for sections of this sort. Don't go too quote heavy—try to summarize the overall tenor of reviews, with references. Marskell (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I added more to the reception area. Im not sure if I i was too quote heavy, so please let me know if I was. Also, I wasnt sure how to cite this one, so I just put the information in brackets. Carlaty (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Characters?

We should do more than just list the names. A little summary for each character might be nice... does anyone want to do it? I could do it but it won't be for a long time.

I haven't read the book yet, but will definitely jump on that as soon as I am done with the book. Carlaty (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that under the Minor Characters section there is a sentence that appears on the edit page, but does not show up on the article page. It the sentence introducing General Daniel Florencio O'Leary. Could someone please help fix this? I tried but I don't know how. Thanks!Eshiu (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! :D Acer (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Eshiu (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Analysis?

What do you guys think of the way I'm splitting the section up? I think it makes it more clear, even if the subsection titles are a bit awkward. Maybe once we get more down for this section we can re-orginize. So far everything has come from online reviews. I'll try to get some material from the library and make this section a little more sharp.

We don't really those two sections should fall under Analysis. We are thinking analysis should be more about the themes and figural labyrinth. Classification maybe should appear at the beginning and expand into genre? But like you said, we can reorganize afterwards.Eshiu (talk) 22:08, 5 March 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)

Concept and Creation?

At the end of the book, the author had a section called "My Thanks". It basically was a thank you page to all the people that helped him. He also ended up telling the story of how he came to write the book. After looking at the Lord of the Rings Wikipedia page, I thought that this could be a section. So I added that section and sub-section in. I hope its okay. I didnt know how to reference the quotations or the information I put in that section as I got everything from the end of the book. Just let me know what information I need from the book for referencing as I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia ways. Carlaty (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Carla, put in page numbers and as much bibliographical information as you can. I've indicated some places to do this. We can then tidy up afterwards. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jon, what happens if I read chapters of several books and them summarized from there? Cause thats what I did, and Im not sure how to reference that. Carlaty (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carlaty! If you make a note of which books, pages etc you used, we'll just add multiple citations at the end of your summary - one for each source, like this. EyeSerene^talk 10:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Further development (sourcing)

This article is shaping up content-wise, but we need to ensure everything is sourced. I've added a Footnotes section to the article, where inline citations will automatically appear... but obviously we need to insert them in the text first!

If editors can provide some sample references (here on the talk page if you like) I'll be happy to format them for you to show how it's done. Once you've seen a few you'll soon get the idea - to add new citations it's mostly just a matter of copy/pasting an existing one and changing the parameters. Perhaps we could start by sourcing some of those citation needed quotations? At a minimum we'd need: Author, Book title, Publisher, Publication date, Page number and an ISBN. EyeSerene^TALK 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you. For the Writing subsection that I wrote, I got that information from the book itself and Im not sure how to reference that on WIkipedia. So I just put Marquez's last name and page number beside the direct quotations I wrote down, also this is the book's information: Gabriel Garcia Márquez, The General in His Labyrinth, Vintage Books, 1990, pp 271-274, ISBN:1-4000-3470-1 Carlaty (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filled in the Marquez book as a reference in the References section, using the {{cite book}} template. I've also left a blank copy of the template at the top of the section, commented out with <!-- and --> so it doesn't appear on the actual page. You'll only see it if you look at the References section in the edit view. This is just to give you a convenient format to copy/paste/fill-in-the-blanks when reference books are being added. I didn't convert the three reference texts already in the section, because it looks to me like they might be from journals rather than books (and there's a different template for these: {{cite journal}}). I can do this as well if you like, although we may need more information on those three (for example, a web link to an online version at somewhere like jstor.org).

I've also turned the notes you left for the quotations into in-line citations. Basically, I've just added <ref> at the start, and </ref> at the end. You'll see that this has automatically numbered them, and listed them under Footnotes. Where the same citation comes up more than once (like the two for page 272 of Marquez), I've named one of the cites by changing the starting <ref> to <ref name="marquez272">. When the same citation came up again, I just used <ref name="marquez272" /> (note the "/" at the end, so no need to finish with </ref>). This cross-references the citation to the earlier one with the same name, and makes them appear together in the Footnotes (as a and b).

On a separate point, if you prefer Harvard-style references, which was basically what you had before I changed them to in-line citations, we can change them back. Both are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.

Sorry to get so technical, but I hope referencing is clearer now! If you have any more questions, or even if you would just prefer to continue adding refs in brackets and leave them to me for conversion, that's no problem ;) All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 15:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanantion EyeSerene! I added new information to the Writing sub-section and added new references. I think referenced the new book correctly or at least I hope I did. Could you kindly check it if I did? Thanks in advance! Carlaty (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I also added a reference in the beginning introduction but left the website on the article page! Please help! I think once I see how it is done, I will be able to do it myself. Thank you! Eshiu (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice job Carlaty! I've only made one small change - once you've got your first citation in place (in this case, <ref name="plimpton160">Plimpton, 160.</ref>), you only need to use <ref name="plimpton160" /> the next time you need to cite the same reference. To be honest it doesn't make any difference in the way it displays in the Footnotes, it's just quicker to type ;)

Eshiu, I've formatted that citation for you, using (yet another!) template. This one is designed for web cites - you'll see how it works in edit mode. For future reference all the various citation templates are on here, although I doubt you'll need any more than the three types we've already got in the article.

Great work, and all the best! EyeSerene^TALK 22:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello EyeSerene, I added a new section and tried to follow the template you left earlier for citing a website. I failed to cite the websites correctly, and have momentarily given up on citing that section. I did leave the website link in brackets, so I hope that you can help me with that. Thank you! Carlaty (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem, I'll go over them for you. Templates make the cites look great in the reading view... but they can be a bit of a nightmare to edit! EyeSerene^TALK 17:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) This article has improved every time I drop by - great work all! I think once the Characters section is complete and a Reception section is in place, we should be looking at a B-Class promotion. One point I did want to mention: will there be more sub-sections going into Concept and creation? If not, I think we could lose the "Writing" sub-heading... EyeSerene^talk 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken EyeSerene. We haven't thought about any other subsection under Concept and creation, so I just took that out for now. Also, thank you for the words of encouragement. I do have a question though...How do we add pictures to the article? Carlaty (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have a question...how do you cite something from the book that is at the begining and has no page numbers? Its at the part of the book after the author's dedications, but its not part of his dedications. So Im not sure how to do it. Carlaty (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman numerals in not cap.! Often books include them ...but if not start from the very first page ... i, ii, iii, iv, v etc....and end at the page before page 1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you shouldn't make up page numbers. Carlaty, can you give me an example? If it were, say, the epigraph to GIHL, you'd just put something like "Epigraph." I'm actually trying to look up more specific guidance, but can't find anything just now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've just looked over at the page itself, and you are indeed talking about the epigraph. No need to cite a page number there. I also made that paragraph a bit more concise. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about idiotic advice. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's not idiotic! You've actually got me wondering how to do this properly, and I've been looking in the MLA style guide and haven't come up with anything. It's doesn't matter in this case: if someone's looking for the epigraph, they know to look at the beginnning of the book. But sometimes prefaces etc. don't have page numbers. I suspect that in fact what you might do is close to what you're saying, which is to use roman numerals but in square brackets (which would indicate that this is information that's not in the book itself). But I'm actually not sure. Anyhow, the question is, as it were, acacademic. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

I added an image for ya! If you come across another that you'd like, just follow the example I've given. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jon, but how do we know if they are copyrighted or not? Carlaty (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of copyright is a minefield! But if they're over 70 years old, I think, they're generally OK. In this case, I just took an image that was already on wikipedia (at Simón Bolívar), so took advantage of the justification already used there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I eventually did realise how complicated copyrighting was as I was looking through the uploading section. I wanted to put up a picture of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but I wanted a prettier one then the one thats on his wikipedia page right now. Ill just put another picture of something else than. Thanks though Jon. Carlaty (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I think that photos of living people are the most difficult of all. Unless you go off and meet García Márquez and take his photo yourself... But in fact I think the image of the Magdalena is much more useful to the article itself. That was a good idea! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure about the image you just added, especially in thumbnail size. I wonder if there's an image of "gran Colombia" somewhere? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. I actually found a picture of Gran Columbia initially, but forgot about it. WIll change it then. :) Carlaty (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What about this image for instance? Or one in the place he died (I've been there, you know, but I'm not sure where my photos are or if they're any good.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And here are some of the Quinta:[2] [3] [4]. These are all free use, and you don't even have to upload them. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So many options, can't decide now. Thank you. Carlaty (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hehe. Oh, and to make things worse, I just discovered this: [5]. And also this [6], which does have another image of GGM. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about Harvnb

No doubt for the FA-team... So why doesn't {{Harvnb|Sfeir de González|2003|p=xxiii}} produce a note that then links on to the reference below? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the syntax for the {{harvnb}} template, but I'm guessing it could be the Roman numerals in the page parameter? EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit) Looks like this is now fixed? EyeSerene^talk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no, although my latest theory (noting that in fact none of the links on this page work) is that it's because we're using "cite book" and "cite journal" rather than "citation" templates in the references. Oh well. If Harvnb doesn't work with "cite book", and if I get really bored, I may change 'em all. It's hardly the most urgent of tasks, though. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary

Eva and I were planning on writing a chapter by chapter summary. Would this be beneficial? and if so, do you think we should get rid of the Synopsis section? Carlaty (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do something quite as mechanical as a chapter summary. But use that material to flesh out the synopsis. Look how they've done it at El Señor Presidente or at any of the feature articles about novels. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that would be less daunting task as well. Carlaty (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact/Fiction?

While we have been researching we have discovered some contradicting facts from the book, for example, it does not seem like Jose Palacios actually exists and it seems that Miranda Lynsday is completely fictional. So how can we put all this into a section? What can we title it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect there are various options. You could have a new section. On the other hand, this could be part of your discussion of the book as a "historical novel," which combines historical and factual elements. You should also of course mention these facts, properly sourced, in the section on characters. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about possible new section

I have also found a lot of journals comparing this novel with other novels that Garcia Marquez has written, specifically comparing themes and characters. Would this be a good section to add as well? And what could it be called?142.103.94.11 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Eshiu (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(First one point: make sure you're signed in when you edit, and that you sign your contibutions to the talk page.) Yes, this seems like important information. It could be part of a section on "Literary context" perhaps? Anyhow, as with your other question: put the information in, properly sourced, and it can always be moved around and restructured later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Article progress

Thank you all for the fantastic job you're doing on this article! It's really shaping up now into something special. Great work ;)

Obviously you're the subject experts here and you can judge the article coverage better than I can. However, it looks to me like most of the content is now place, so perhaps it's a good time to start work on polishing the article?

• It might bring a more logical layout to the article to reorder the sections slightly. I would suggest (following directly under the lead): 'Historical context', 'Inspiration and style', 'Genre', 'Synopsis', 'Characters', 'Themes', 'Reception', etc. It may also make sense to incorporate 'style' with 'Genre' (rather than 'Inspiration'), or even give it a section of its own, but of course it's your call ;) dealt with by User:Wassupwestcoast
• I'm sure you're already aware of this, but the Commentary on current affairs sub-section is under-referenced at the moment.
• Still on referencing, the article seems to rely very heavily on the book itself. This sort of self-referencing is fine, as long as it's limited to eg backing up simple factual statements about the book itself or quotations. We need to be careful though that it's not used as a vehicle for original research. To be fair, I don't think this is the case (from my admittedly fairly quick read-through!), but it's something to be aware of and to be prepared to defend if it gets raised when the article is assessed.
• The lead needs further work, although it's often best to leave this part of the article until last. Wikipedia likes the lead to be a summary of the article, as opposed to an introduction to it (a good rule-of-thumb is that it should be possible to delete everything but the lead and still leave readers with a good grasp of the overall subject). However, we can work on this when all the content is in place.

The article also needs a thorough copyedit to ensure it complies the Manual of Style regarding prose, layout and other minutiae. If you like I can make a start on this - Wikipedia does have a copyediting department (the League of Copyeditors), but as with most in-demand projects they're permanently backlogged!

I think we're fast approaching the point where this article will be ready for Good article assessment, and if we can get the above points addressed I'll be happy to nominate. Nice work all! EyeSerene^talk 10:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, the GA nomination has gone in, so we're now on the starting blocks. I'll crack on with expanding the lead and copyediting as soon as I can - probably tomorrow. We don't know how soon it will be until the article is reviewed, but obviously the quicker everything is prepared the better. Here's hoping for your A's! EyeSerene^talk 19:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for working on the lead EyeSerene! Can't thank you enough for all the work you have done. Carlaty (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The layout

I followed Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines and Wikipedia:Layout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! I know they recommend a certain layout, but I'm not convinced it's always applicable. Given that the novels in this area are very much a product of their time, I think it can help to set the scene by providing a historical context before diving into the plot summary. However, it's only a suggestion - feel free to ignore ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We must have our wires crossed. I agree with you! It was changed to the way you suggested. Historical context first. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I just came back here to edit my reply, having realised I'd got the wrong end of the stick... that's what comes of me replying on a talk page without checking the article first! Mea culpa, and thanks for the alterations! All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys. Sorry to ring up reverts, but I thought my role in signing up to the MMM project was to help match articles to Featured article style. Virtually every one of our FAs on fiction begins with the synopsis after the lead. It is very, very common practice. The headline isn't always the same—it can be Synopsis, Plot, or Plot summary—but that's what our articles do. On books, TV episodes, and movies. We can debate it, of course, but I was only following what I've seen on most every similar article. Marskell (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. There's merits in both styles, so whatever works ;) EyeSerene^talk 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused stress. I know all about the strange contradiction of Wikipedia. I even wrote this bit on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem page:

"Conflict between any of these is inevitable and troublesome; editors simply have to work out conflicts through consensus."
The simplest way to understand the various style guides is to examine articles that have passed GA or FA. Here is a recently promoted Featured article of a novelist: Chinua Achebe

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Deep breaths

Hi all. I just got out of class with the rest of the WP:MMM. In fact, it was in class that I told the trio working on this article that it had been nominated for GA. (They hadn't yet checked the page this morning.) Everything's now started to rush forward, which in some ways is great, but in others has clearly caused some conflicts.

I'd just mention that a couple of relative newbies will be back on the article today, now that class is out (and presumably once they have time from their other classes this afternoon). We should certainly make sure that the pace doesn't go too fast for them, and that they don't get frustrated and discouraged. I'm sure we can manage that. But I see part of my role as trying if at all possible to ensure that things go as smoothly for them as it can.

Many thanks! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. We'll take our lead from the MMM. Don't worry about the recent rush; it's all part of the Wikipedia Experience^(TM)! Please don't feel too pressured either - although it may seem otherwise at times, there's none from the FA-Team. Really the only deadline that's important to you is the end-of-semester grading, and at the end of the day the article can only develop at its own pace. All the MMM editors are coping really well with this peculiar environment; you've already won our respect ;) All the best! EyeSerene^talk 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have just been bold, and reverted a whole series of edits, because it had come to seem that all the quotations from the book came from just one page. (A very fertile page no doubt!) And I know that previous WP:MMM editors had worked hard to comb through the book to get those references accurate, so it would seem to be doing them something a disservice to undo their work. Obviously, their work had become undone entirely by accident, and I did think of combing back through and comparing versions so as to re-attach quotations to page numbers. But in the end I figured it would probably easier just to revert back to this previous version.

But right now I ain't gonna do nothing with that previous version. I'm going to sit back, take a few deep breaths, actually probably go outside and get some fresh air, and then come back in a few minutes. We'll see how consensus is shaping up then!

Please not I mean no disservice to any editor who's been working on this page. I'm especially grateful to Wassupwestcoast who so kindly and flatteringly came by and nominated it for GA review already. It's just that it does seem that those references have been come tangled. And this is the best way I can see of disentangling them.

Now off for that walk outside in this lovely late afternoon at UBC. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've come back. I see User:Carlaty has just added a new picture. I take that as the beginnings of a consensus that we should continue on the basis of my bold revert. Again, apologies especially to User:Wassupwestcoast for undoing so much of his hard work. But things had become a little confused there. Many thanks again to all. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Im a little confused with what happened. Is the addition of the new picture okay? Carlaty (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay never mind. I understand now :). Carlaty (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

All is well! When the page numbers are sorted out, you'll have to combine all the 'references to one page' and 'references to one book / source' together by using the code "ref name=???" The use of ibid does not work on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. Also, having a long list of different ref #s all citing the same source is disliked. See Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit of one step forward, two steps back. But things had become a little tangled. So though we lost a bunch of edits, at least we didn't lose them all. And after a bit of a breath or two, we can go forward again. Once more, thanks so much for all your help. I'm glad we all seem to be back on track. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

From Wikipedia:Good article criteria,

1. Template:GAicon It is well written:

Template:GAicon (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Template:GAicon (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

Template:GAicon (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

Template:GAicon Hold (b) provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and

Template:GAicon (c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

Template:GAicon (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and

Template:GAicon Hold (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.

4. Template:GAicon It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Template:GAicon It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Template:GAicon It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images:

Template:GAicon (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Template:GAicon (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall, On Hold I realize this is part of an educational assignment so I will not specify any specific timeframe.

Comments

1. The writing is overall good.

2. Impressive "References" section. However, there are some "cite needed" tags that need to be cleared. The article uses an abundance of quotations, some of which are not necessary. For example, in "Characters" the description of José Palacios uses several unnecessary quotes. Generally, we only use quotes if it is important how the author said the information. The "Reception" section uses quotes appropriately because their opinions are usually carefully crafted.

"Cite needed" tags have been cleared, by finding and citing the source in question (Bushnell). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There are still two in "Politics". --maclean 09:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, missed those.

Fixed now, I hope. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

3. It covers all the necessary topics, however, the "Background" section wanders away from direct historical context and into Christopher Columbus and European history territory.

4 & 5 & 6. Balanced and stable with appropriate illustrations. A fine example of collaborative editing.

Of course, this assessment is open to second opinions from any interested editors. --maclean 08:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! Very helpful. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oop, the book cover image changed on me. Please specify the source on the 'Non-free / fair use media rationale' template. --maclean 09:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the change. I found an image of the first edition, and then wondered if the source was self-evidently the jacket itself. Have added the url of the place I found the image. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. --maclean 09:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And thanks to you, for providing further examples of what information is needed on such pages. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review! Carlaty and I have looked again at the Historical Context section and deleted a bit to try to make it more focussed. We think the Christopher Columbus detail is useful still, but if you think it is definitely unnecessary, we can take it out. I hope it is better now. Eshiu (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good work. On the Christopher Columbus detail, as the primary authors of this article (and the ones who did all the research) I will trust your judgment on its relevance. However, could we merge the two sentences and dispense with the brackets? Currently it says SA was conquered within decades of CC and CC reached Venezuela in 1498. How about Within a few decades of CC's 1498 voyage, which reached what is now Venezuela's coast, Spain and Portugal had effectively conquered South America. I would even go so far as to merge this bit with the first paragraph.
• On the quotes, here is a list of some which I think we can synthesize into the text in our own words (keep the footnotes, but paraphrase):

• "empires are disintegrating and the political map is being radically redrawn."
• “the closer to home, the sorrier the perspective.”
• "García Márquez also frames the entire novel with an epigraph which might have been written by Homer, Aeschylus, or Sophocles."
• “At the same time the number eight suggests a calendar that marks the General’s last hours with the metaphor of an octagonal clock.”
• “the General rides a mule into the last towns on the journey toward his death, just as Christ rode a mule into Jerusalem.” --maclean 07:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing specifics for us to improve on! It is a lot of help! I have fixed, hopefully, the Christopher Columbus sentence; and paraphrased the 1st, 3rd, and 5th quotes. I didn't really understand what the 2nd quote was trying to say, and had a hard time with the 4th quote. Carlaty, help me with this! Eshiu (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As Eshiu states, thank you so much for giving us specifics. I paraphrased the two remaining quotes. And also, an update on our furutre updates, EShiu and I have decided to finish the Plot Summary tomorrow. Carlaty (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the work and being interactive. The article should have GA-status now. Moving onto further levels of review (at Feature article candidates) there will be two major shifts: (1) from broad coverage to comprehensive, and (2) from well-written to engaging and professional writing. This means review each section for language, conciseness, and flow. With the plot summary, be wary of going into too much detail (maintain balance with overall article - avoid overwhelming it with plot detail). When you are comfortable with the level of comprehensiveness, solicit some reviews and copyedits from the WP:FA Team who are some of the most competent FA participants Wikipedia has ever seen. Good luck! --maclean 19:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you so much maclean!!!!!! Carlaty (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, cool. Great job guys. Wrad (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! The GA-status makes Carlaty and I very happy! Eshiu (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw this. Yay!!! I'm so pleased. Well done you guys!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Two issues

It seems to me (and beyond the issues raised above):

1. That the synopsis could still very much be expanded, to reach the more usual size of 500-600 words.

2. The article relies an awful lot on Palencia-Roth. I think there's room to look for some more sources out there.

But yes, this is becoming a very solid article these days. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Eshiu and I, have talked to the other editor of this article about the Synopsis. We asked the editor to expand this into a Plot Summary as well as add citations to the paragraphs once added earlier. I see the citations have been fixed by jbmurray, however, if the Plot Summary is not expanded by Monday, Eshiu and I will do that by Monday. FYI :) Carlaty (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Carlaty and I are still working on the plot summary; but after we finish, we will go back and try to delete unnecessary details. We were also wondering if it is okay for the entire plot summary to not have citations since it is just a summary of the book. Or if there are any suggestions as to how we can incorporate quotes, maybe similar to the characters section or would that be unnecessary? Eshiu (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Politics Section

Would it be more appropriate to put the Politics section under the Reception section? Carlaty (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. At present that subsection combines a) background (the book's background), b) a theme and c) reception. It's also a place I intervened because we never got the citation details for a couple of quotations that had been put there earlier. My feeling, however, is that it might be worth expanding this as a theme, but with perhaps a more specific title depending on what you can find. E.g. "The end of Utopias." The question of politics is in one way or another an important theme within the novel, and it would seem worth saying something about it. Once this section is expanded, then you might want to hive off some of the information to other sections. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we will definitely work on expanding this part as well as the themes section in general. Carlaty (talk) 23:31, 25 March 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 General in His Labyrinth/archive1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Do you think that our Plot Summary is a bit too long??? Also, I was also wondering what a curly quote was? Carlaty (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wassup's comment on the plot summary length. A curly quote is like this -- " -- but curly. Don't worry about it too much, is what I'd say. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Three WP:MOSDASH violations in one statement, Professor Murray (including one in your signature)—now that WP:MMM is getting close to FAC territory on several articles, it's time to get those dashes right! :-) Geometry guy 22:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. You know, I don't even know where the dash key is on my keyboard. —jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary is 930 words at present.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) - no word target.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines – no word target.

But, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines says for:

Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words and should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as a very complicated plot.

I think it the plot summary should be trimmed by 200 - 250 words. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that the plot summary should be in balance with the rest of the article. For many films, the plot summary is in danger of being most of the article! I think the current plot summary is in balance with the rest of the article. Maybe it could be trimmed a bit, but please don't aim at arbitrary figures provided by WikiProject Films. It is more important to enhance the material in other sections than trim down the plot summary! Geometry guy 21:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult sentence

I've been trying to copyedit from the bottom and I'm ecountering some difficult prose. As Isabel Rodríguez Vergara notes, the number three is repeated 21 times throughout the book; and is said to occupy a vital place in the symbology of the Catholic Mass, as Mircea Eliade found [44] "In the novel it represents a symbolic sacrifice aimed at redeeming humankind – that of Bolívar, a misunderstood redeemer sacrificed by his own people."[43] Can't make any sense of this. The semi-colon and the transition to the quote are off. Marskell (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this sentence (and section) because the source was unreliable. Thanks! Eshiu (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

We just got a useful peer review. A reminder that you should have the peer review page on your watchlist, so you don't miss new content there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what we should do when different reviews say different things. For example, the latest peer review says this, This idea of fate can be closely associated with the ancient Greeks as demonstrated in the epigraph, which easily could have been written by Homer, Aeschylus, or Sophocles. - I think you'd be better quoting the exact phrase from Palencia-Roth here, otherwise it looks like awkward paraphrasing and makes a clunky transition to the next sentence. But in our GA review above, it was suggested that what I had originally as a quote should be paraphrased instead, which I have done. So should I turn it back into a quote again? Eshiu (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that after I'd commented at PR. In this case I'm think the suggestion was made because the original composition around the quotation was odd: the sentence developed into the quotation midway through with no introduction and seemingly no reason to begin where it did. Without the quotation the next sentence is awkward, referring back to the epigraph in question. Without the strictures placed on the paragraph structure by the placement of the quotation this information could be placed in the preceding sentence. I'd suggest returning partially to the quotation as it gives Palencia-Roth's opinion that it "might have been written by Homer, Aeschylus, or Sophocles", and the current paraphrasing ...which easily could have been written by... without a direct inline attribution is likely to be pulled out at FAC as original research. Yomangani^talk 00:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Style

The very last paragraph in this section about Bolivar being like Marquez seems a little out of place. Everything else is about trying to categorize the book. Can we put it somewhere else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulleblanc (talk • contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps under "Characters"? NB that the "characters" section could do with being fleshed out, not least the paragraph on Bolívar himself... especially as in some ways the book is a study of his character. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

These two sources should probably be replaced:

1. Rodríguez Vergara, Isabel (1998), The General in his Labyrinth: Writing as Exorcism, "Haunting Demons: Critical Essays on the Works of Gabriel García Márquez", INTERAMER (no. 64), <http://www.educoas.org/Portal/bdigital/contenido/interamer/interamer_64/art3/exorcism.aspx?culture=en&navid=221>. Retrieved on 22 March 2008 Trans. Anna Serra
2. Ruch, Allen B. (June 7, 2007), The General in his Labyrinth, www.themodernword.com, <http://www.themodernword.com/gabo/gabo_works_fiction.html#Anchor-The-6296>. Retrieved on 5 March 2008

The first of these is rather weird. It seems to be a summary or excpert from an essay in a book called Haunting Demons: Critical Essays on the Works of Gabriel García Márquez. If you could hunt down the book itself, that would be much better. The second is www.themodernword.com, a webpage with little authority. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The ISBN for the book mentioned in 1. is ISBN 0827038526. It appears to be out of print, but a library might have it (specifically Columbus Memorial Library as they are the publishers) Yomangani^talk 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, no library near here has it, according to Worldcat. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed both these sources and the quotations that were used. We'll try to find some more reliable sources. Eshiu (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss the use of the first reference. I think the main problem here is that we don't know what editorial role OAS has played before presenting Rodríguez Vergara's work. Maybe we just need to cite the reference in such a way as to make that clear. Though we might want to avoid the OAS when writing about politics, that's not the case in the section in which it was cited and the website is clearly not at the blog level. Without the symbology section the article is weaker, and although a better source covering this area would be preferable, I'd recommend returning it. Yomangani^talk 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have the section saved on my computer, should I put it back into the article or leave it here while it is still being decided? Eshiu (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you should return it. We can copy-edit it and if another source can not be found we can argue over the reliability of the current source at FAC. Yomangani^talk 08:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was checking the Borland source and doing some more research,

1. Borland, Isabel Alvarez (September 1993), "The Task of the Historian in El general en su laberinto", Hispania 76 (3): 439–445, <http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0018-2133%28199309%2976%3A3%3C439%3ATTOTHI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6>. Retrieved on 2008-03-30.

And I'm quite sure the last name is Alvarez-Borland. Please let me know if you agree, and I will go and change all the references to her last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mixed results on Worldcat, some with hyphen, some without. I looked at two book covers on Amazon and neither had the hyphen.[7],[8] .qp10qp (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that as well, but I was thinking even without the hyphen maybe when referring to her name is should be Alvarez Borland. Most Spanish last names are a combination of both their father and mother's last name. Like García Márquez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've just noticed that in the works cited section in this journal by Isabel Alvarez Borland actually cites another work of her own and used Alvarez Borlans. I think its safe to say now it should be Alvarez Borland? I will begin the process of changing all of them. Please let me know soon if I'm wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is needed but in the Style section, Alvarez Borland quotes Linda Hutcheon. This is just the information for that quote. Hutcheon, Linda. A Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. New York: Routledge, 1988. Eshiu (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are quoting Alvarez B quoting Hutcheon, then you'd do something like "As Linda Hutcheon argues, 'blah blah blah' (qtd. Alvarez Borland, p. 76)". Does that make sense? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I fixed all the ones that had someone quoting someone. I used the Palencia-Roth and Rodriguez Vergara as examples. I hope its right.. Eshiu (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

IP edits

An unregistered editor keeps removing certain sections without any explanation. I'm reverting the changes at the moment as they don't seem to be constructive, but would welcome an explanation. Yomangani^talk 19:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed. Thanks so much for catching these! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Thinking how best to help groom this article for FAC, I've decided to try to dovetail some of the quotations, or their content, better into the text. As I said at the peer review, not all that content seems to me fully digested. I am going to try to paraphrase parts of some of the quotes into the main text, remove repetitions, and move some of the quotations into the footnotes, if they seem supplementary. Could the editors please scream if they object to this! (I don't intend to reduce the amount of information, just to condense it here and there and allow the main text of the article to breathe a little better for itself.) qp10qp (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! It's very much appreciated! Do you think we still need more content, because I can definitely continue trying to add more content. Or do you think it's more important now to make sure the writing is fine. Eshiu (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I think there's plenty of content: this is actually quite long for an article on a novel, so if anything it might need streamlining. Yes, I think the writing should be the focus now. You've done the hard work, now comes the hard work! qp10qp (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Vergara/Eliade

As Isabel Rodríguez Vergara notes, the number three—the Trinity which occupies a vital place in the symbology of the Catholic Mass—is repeated 21 times throughout the book; as Mircea Eliade found:[44] "In the novel it represents a symbolic sacrifice aimed at redeeming humankind—that of Bolívar, a misunderstood redeemer sacrificed by his own people."

I found the wording here a little clumsy and unclear. The ref is "Qtd by Vergara", so are these words Mircea Eliade's? In that case, I would suggest replacing "as Mircea Eliade found" with: "Vergara quotes Mircea Eliade". I haven't done this myself because I'm not completely sure I've read this right. qp10qp (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those were the words of Mircea Eliade, I'll change it to "Vergara quotes Mircea Eliade" now. Eshiu (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Close to FA?

I know I for one am getting quite anxious and maybe getting ahead of myself. But I was wondering how close we are to getting it nominated for FA? Just for a bit of reassurance, curiousity, and motivation. :-) Eshiu (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I just had a glance, and it looks pretty darn impressive to me! I'm sure there'll still be a few issues at FAC itself, but wow! It looks solid. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment at PR. I think you should go for it tomorrow, as close to midnight as possible (to give time for a chunk more work: take Yomangan's suggestions below very seriously). I don't think the article is perfectly ready, and I expect that you will receive "Comments" rather than "Supports", to start with; but then if you chip away in response, as you have done so diligently at peer review, one by one those supports should start clocking up. FAC can be tough, so grit your teeth. qp10qp (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. While it is a lot better than many articles that are nominated, you shouldn't expect a flurry of supports: it will need work at FAC. It is also important to re-engage the reviewers that comment or oppose once you have addressed their concerns; drop them a note on their talk page and ask them to re-review. Yomangani^talk 00:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Characters

Some of the time in the character section we can guess whether the events are real by referring to the footnotes, but the readers shouldn't have to be skipping back and forth to see if we are talking about fiction or history (or both). Also we get a sketch of the characters but little idea of the purpose of the inclusion of any of them in the novel. Why are any of them necessary? Is José Palacios included to as a proxy observer? Is Manuela Sáenz a device to allow the General's past to be examined?

Simón Bolívar

In this novel, Bolívar is referred to only as either the General or the Liberator; but his full name is General Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar Palacios y Blanco.Since he is never referred to as this in the book why is it here? Also, he is referred to once by name so to say Bolívar is referred to only as either the General or the Liberator is incorrect. At the beginning of the novel, he is 46 years old and slowly dying on his last journey to the port of Cartagena de Indias where he is set to sail to Europe. "Bolívar is cast here not only as a victim but as an agent of Latin America's tragic political flaws." It has been said that in reality, his fortunes began to decline in 1824 after the Sucre's victory in Ayacucho.Who has it been said by and is it said about the character in the book or the real life Bolívar? If it is the real-life Bolívar then how does that compare to the character in the novel? He was in fact prematurely aged again...in real life or the book or both? but "love-affairs have been alleged as a cause of decline."real life or in the book? However, it was not proven that Bolívar had been any more amorous or sensual than the average sensual man.Clunky and could do with a cite, and again which Bolívar are we talking about? The novel follows the fact that he did not marry again after the death of his wife.What does that tell us about the character? "It is sometimes said that great soldiers are born, not made. Bolívar certainly was not born one." He began his service in the militia with not much success but his dedication to the army above other things made the difference.This looks to be the real-life Bolívar. How is shown in the book? Who is saying it made a difference?' The officers that admired him and stayed with him had to deal with his bad temper, which is another detail that is evident in the book. O'Leary describes this by saying, "His imperious and impatient temperament would never tolerate the smallest delay in the execution of an order."

José Palacios

Is he a real person? José Palacios is Bolívar's closest aide-de-camp in the book. He constantly waits on the General, and at certain times, he alone is allowed in the General's room. Even though he is usually at the General's side, Palacios often repeats, "Only my master knows what my master in thinking." Born a slave, he is six years younger than the General, and has spent his entire life in his service.What is his role in the book? Is he a sounding board for the General?

I don't even know if he is a real person. SO FAR, we cannot find any truth behind his character but also have not found anything opposing to it. I don't want to put that we think he is fictional because that is against Wiki rules isn't it? I'm not sure what his role is in the book either.. Jon? Help? All I can remember from class is that he is like a Patino from I the Supreme, or Miguel Angel Face from The President. But really, I think he is just there as his manservant. Eshiu (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Manuela Sáenz

Manuela Sáenz is the General's long-time lover, his last since the death of his wife, 27 years earlier.Real life? She is also his confidante, the guardian of his archives, his most impassioned reader,What does this refer to? and a member of his staff with the rank of colonel.Real life? She is described as "the bold Quiteña who loved him but was not going to follow him to his death." Bolívar leaves her behind Where and why? but throughout his journey, he writes to her. She also attempts to write letters to him with news of the political situation, but the mail carriers have been instructed not to accept her letters.Why? Manuela is married to Dr. James Thorne, an English physician twice her age. She left her husband for Bolívar after he wrote declaring his undying love for her as she was about to leave for London with her husband. When did this occur in the book? Manuela had also warned the General of Santander's plot to assassinate him.How if she can not communicate with him? Or is this in real life again?

General Francisco de Paula Santander

Santander had once been a great friend of Bolívar's. He later became his enemy living in exile in Paris after his involvement in an assassination attempt on the General on September 25.In the novel? Prior to this, Bolívar had appointed Santander as President of Colombia because he believed him to be an effective and brave soldier. The General had also once described Santander as "[his] other self, and perhaps [his] better self". Bolívar's secret name for Santander was "Cassandro" and he occasionally referred to him by this name.Why does this matter?

Field Marshal Antonio José de Sucre

Antonio José de Sucre, the Field Marshal of Ayacucho, is an intimate friend of the General. He is described as "intelligent, methodical, shy, and superstitious". He was married to and had a daughter with Doña Mariana Carcelén.In the novel? The General had asked Sucre to succeed him as President of the Republic, but he rejected the idea.In the novel? He was assassinated on June 4 1830 in Berruecos.In the novel? Yomangani^talk 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded and changed the tenses to present since it is referring to the novel. I should probably add in which parts are both real and in the book right? Eshiu (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This was one of the reasons why it has taken us so long to tackle the characters section, because the book is half fiction and half reality, I am unsure how we can discuss the characters without having to always specify what is in the book and what is real. We were actually consider putting two sections under each character - Fact and Fiction. Will that help or just mess up the prose? Just to add, I feel like if after every sentence we have to say this is in reality, or this is in the book, it will not flow.. Eshiu (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you separate it so the important historical details come first, you can then then introduce the details from the novel with a simple reference. That way we know what to expect from the structure. You can also use the past when referring to the historical detail and the present when referring to the novel (as with the plot summary) and terms which highlight that the characters are being referred to ("García Márquez portrays him as...", "his actions in chapter seven", "During the episode with the police in Turbaco") to make the distinction clear. Something like:

Antonio José de Sucre (1795-1830), was one of Simón Bolívar's closest friends. He was responsible for the decisive victory at Ayacucho in recognition of which he was promoted to the rank of Field Marshal. Despite Bolívar's hope that Sucre would become president, he was assassinated near Pasto, in southern Colombia shortly after Bolívar's resignation. In the novel he is described as "intelligent, methodical, shy, and superstitious", and.... Bolívar's desire to see Sucre succeed him as president is highlighted when....García Márquez pinpoints Sucre's decision...etc.

It means losing some of the detail unless it can be tied specifically to some important character trait, but I think that is what you should be aiming for anyway. Yomangani^talk 01:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'll definitely try my best to work on the characters, I'm trying to look for sources about Jose Palacios and even sources to support the truth behind what is told in the book regarding the characters. Thanks for your advice. Eshiu (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most of what I had put for the characters was from the book, but also real. So I'll try to reword things and I feel like I should look for sources to support these facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshiu (talk • contribs) 07:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you don't need other sources, so long as the information is given in the novel and so long as—this is Yomangan's point—you make it clear that you are not talking about the real historical figures. If you do talk about the real historical figures, perhaps other sources are necessary, but this is probably spoken about in some way in the critical sources. qp10qp (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvarez Borland refs

Sorry if I screwed the page numbers up in moving things around. I should have done what I was tempted to do in the first palce and simply reduced them all to one ref, since this is only a five-page range anyway. I should admit now that I hate the "ref name =" multiple ref system, and if I do have to use it I always fill every ref with the cite details. The problems with it are exactly the ones I've just had, that they are inflexible and they go awry if you cut one of them, then you have to patch about. Between us, we've probably spent more time messing with these wretched things than editing the sentences they cited. Apologies. qp10qp (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of Alvarez Borland, I have cut the following from the "Style" section. I think the cut makes that rather unwieldly section more digestible, and, reading this passage over and over, I can't see that it really says anything different from what was said in the "Challenging history" section, where we already had a bunchload of Alvarez Borland's views.

Alvarez Borland believes The General in His Labyrinth can be considered a historical metafiction. The term is meant to describe post-modern narratives which ask two questions of history: "How can we know the past? What can we know of it?" Alvarez Borland, quoting Linda Hutcheon, explains that "Historiographic metafiction refutes the natural or common-sense methods of distinguishing between historical fact and fiction. It refuses the view that only history has a truth claim, both by questioning the ground of that claim in historiography and by asserting that both history and fiction are discourses, human constructs, signifying systems, and both derive their major claim to truth from that identity." According to Alvarez Borland, this novel fits into this category, as it "it dramatizes the process of historical reconstruction by means of a fictional historian who confronts the process of how official history is created."

Do please put this back in if you disagree with me.

I've also provisionally changed the title of the section from "Style" to "Form and style". This is because I do not think style is really being discussed there at all. The section seems to be about what form or genre of novel this is. I will try to make some edits to bring "style" into it, but "style" is really about language, imagery, etc., and without the change in section title, that apparent contradiction might be brought up at FAC, where "style" sections are often a target of criticism. qp10qp (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrrow

I'm actually going to be away all day tomorrow and will not be able to work on the page. I should be able to attend to it further later in the night before the deadline. Thanks for all your help everyone! Eshiu (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for all your terrific work. This article is a valuable gift for Wikipedia. You and your team are much appreciated. qp10qp (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Politics

I'm just going to post the old stuff here incase people arn't happy with the change. "Reviewing The General in His Labyrinth, the novelist Margaret Atwood draws attention to the context of its publication. The novel was published in 1989, when the Soviet Union was disintegrating and the political map was being radically redrawn.[33] With the end of the Cold War, the modern United States had never seemed so powerful. García Márquez has Bolívar tell his aide that the United States is "omnipotent and terrible, and its tale of liberty will end in a plague of miseries for us all".[34]

The novel itelf is about a man at the end of his life, who has seen his revolution and dream of a united Latin America fail. Atwood notes that "the tale of Bolívar is exemplary, not just for his own turbulent age but for ours as well. Revolutions have a long history of eating their progenitors."[33] Bolívar's opposition to the United States reflects a sentiment which is still common in Latin America. Journalist Franklin Foer reports that The General in His Labyrinth is the favorite book of the current Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, a staunch antagonist of the US government.[35]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulleblanc (talk • contribs) 09:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I've given it a copyedit. I like the way it uses specific incidents from the novel to illustrate its political aspects. qp10qp (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Postmodernism/Freudianism

I cut the following paragraph, because it didn't really seem to me about the novel:

To provide a better explanation of how the novel attempts to force the reader to deal with death and mourning, Alonso explains that the melancholy mourning distinction comes from Freudian theory. Both activities are methods of dealing with loss, where "the libido constructs an image of it as a defence against its absence; hence, the love for the lost object or being becomes love for an introspected image of the disappeared Object." With proper mourning, the libido slowly becomes less concerned with this image of the lost object, and eventually it releases it. With melancholy however the libido refuses to let go of this introspected image. The object is kept alive as a representation, but at the same time the object is repudiated for having abandoned them. This results in the "self-destructive and paralyzing behaviour that characterizes the melancholy being."

I've copyedited that section to make it so that, I, the man in the street, can begin to understand it. I also changed the heading from "Postmodernism" to "Melancholy and mourning", since it seems to me entirely about the latter and never mentions Postmodernism. Also because the overall section is called "Themes", and Postmodernism is not a theme. Postmodernism is touched on (by other names) in different parts of the article, and unless there is a significant body of criticism about this novel and Postmodernism, I suggest there's no need for a dedicated section with this title. By all means disagree. qp10qp (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Character: Manuela Sáenz

I've added a little quote about her from the novel, just to make clear what is fictional at that point in the character description. I took this from an Amazon "search inside", which has a different edition from the one cited in the article. I've left the citation out; perhaps someone can cite that quote from the edition used in the article. I found it on p. 151 of the edition on Amazon. qp10qp (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Low and bheold it was on the exact same page as well! *phew* Carlaty (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you guys think, but we could move the politics part to the Character section and put it under Bolivar(It would work I think because all the political points really come out of that character). Borland also discusses a little of Jose Palacious's role in the novel that I could add. So I think we could add more of an analysis type flare to the character section rather than just like direct description. I'll wait to hear what you guys have to say before I try it.