Jump to content

Talk:Carmen Rodríguez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCarmen Rodríguez was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Chilean Canadian writer Carmen Rodriguez publishes much of her work in both English and Spanish, and that she herself is responsible for their translation?

Plan

[edit]

The following is our plan for the creation and development of the article on Carmen Rodriguez.

  • Our aim is to create a comprehensive, detailed and accurate article on Carmen Rodriguez. Our ultimate goal is to reach the Featured Article status.
  • Thus far, we plan on going over the following items regarding Carmen Rodriguez.

Biography, which will focus on 1) early life, origins 2) family 3) education and degrees 4) the importance of religion 5) immigration to canada 6) current jobs and works-in-progress

Influences on her literary work

Literary Works. In this section we plan on either including a short summary of each work, or a link to already existing articles on her works.

Awards and Recognitions

  • The work will be split up between us in the following manner: mstmaurice will do parts 1-3 of the biography, while exclamationpoint will take care of sections 4-6 of the biography. The remainder of the sections which are shorter will be worked on jointly.
  • exclamationpoint has located an email address for Carmen Rodriguez. We hope to be able to contact her to get an interview or information, or at least to correct false information.

- This article is part of a class project at the University of British Columbia. More information can be found here --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good plan. You can of course add to it over time. And cross things off when you've done them, including adding a big green checkmark {{done}}  Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are making great progress here! I'll tidy up a little later, and help format the references. But a quick look suggests that this is basically ready for DYK right now! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help everyone. Everything's going according to plan so far - but we definitely need more sources. I've emailed the creator of the website which wasn't so reliable in order to get information about the legitimacy of the interview with the author, hopefully that yields something. The next step now is some more research into reliable sources. The article also needs some organization and a lot of reviewing in terms of the writing - but I suppose we can worry about that after we have our information. --Mstmaurice (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'm planning on emailing Rodriguez tomorrow and to send her a link to this page so she could check it out/to talk about maybe interviewing her in person. I suppose that in writing an article about Rodriguez, the most reliable source would be Rodriguez herself. Also, I would be interested in adding some pictures, could someone help me with this? As well, some of the quotes I have been referring to have been on the back cover/author's page/introduction of Rodriguez's books. How do I cite these if they do not have page numbers? Thank you all very much! --Exclamationpoint (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good call about the pictures - I have no clue how to do that but I'll look into it. We could include a portrait, and some pictures of book covers, etc. as we go on. --Mstmaurice (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures are tricky, unless you get them from Rodriguez yourself. I think that fairly soon, once you've developed the article a little more, you can show it to her. You've done a great job so far! --08:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

[edit]

One of the recently added refs looks unreliable: this one is just a home page, and so self-published. The interview itself might be reliable if we can find it in another source, but I don't think this page is usable as it stands. Mike Christie (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed the creator of the page to get more information and see if there are legitimate credentials regarding the interview, hopefully I hear back soon! --Mstmaurice (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, you guys are going to have to look for some reliable sources here. Which means, basically, print sources. I'm not entirely sure how much there will be on Rodriguez, so you'll probably need to chase down every last one. (We'll be talking about sources in class on Friday.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility for Did you know?

[edit]

Not quite sure how the process goes... but I was thinking we could do something like did you know... that Carmen Rodriguez published many of her works in both English and Spanish? What sets her apart is that she was also the one responsible for their translation. --Mstmaurice (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an excellent hook; it's a quite unusual fact about her, so that would be very suitable for DYK. Mike Christie (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Mike said. You'll see I just added Chicano literature to T:TDYK. You'll want to add yours here and then watchlist the page as other editors go over what you've contributed, checking that it fits the rules. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just added the article here. We'll keep an eye on it. --Mstmaurice (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Yes, check in from time to time to see if anyone has any queries about it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, and not as hard as I thought it would be. Hopefully we can contact Carmen Rodriguez herself soon! Thanks for all the help! --Exclamationpoint (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

getting rid of {{fact}} tags for DYK

[edit]

Guys:

Apparently a DYK is supposed to have no {{fact}} tags. We need to get rid of the ones that are here. The two offending sentences are:

Carmen Rodriguez describes herself as a writer as being "committed, hardworking, disciplined".

Where does this quotation come from? I had a quick look earlier, and couldn't find it. We need a source, with page number etc.

Rodriguez describes her experience during the coup as an overnight change. Chileans felt a complete lack of freedom and democracy almost instantly. During the incident, many of her friends were jailed or killed.

Ditto here. Where does this information come from? We need a citation. Let's do this today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hey team,

I'm going to delete these sentences temporarily, or at least until we find out if they are from a reliable source or not (currently waiting for the website's owner to contact us). Thanks. --Exclamationpoint (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work guys! looks like we got it. on to the next step! --24.84.59.200 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done! (NB, don't forget to sign in when you are contributing...  :) ) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

[edit]
  • An Interview with Carmen Rodriguez, August 5, 1999, retrieved 2008-09-19{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
  • Carrasco M., Iván (April 2005), "Literature intercultural chilena: proyectos actuales", Revista chilena de literatura (66): 63–84{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
    Short discussion but long quotation from Rodriguez.
  • Díaz, Luciano; Etcheverry, Jorge, eds. (2002), Boreal: Antología de Poesía Latinoamericana en Canadá, Ottawa: Verbum Veritas/La Cita Trunca, ISBN ?? {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help).
  • Hazelton, Hugh (2007), Latinocanadá: A Critical Study of Ten Latin American Writers of Canada, Toronto: McGill-Queen's University Press, ISBN 978-0773532076. At Koerner library: PS8075.S6 H39 2007.
    Some passing references to Rodriguez; but mainly useful for overview of Latin American writers in Canada.
  • Macdonald, Jenny (January 16, 1999), "Chilean exiles put it into words", National Post, p. 7, retrieved 2008-09-29{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
    Review of and a body to remember with plus general discussion of Chilean-Canadians.
  • Montes Garcés, Elizabeth (2007), Relocating Identities in Latin American Cultures, Calgary: University of Calgary Press, ISBN 978-1552382097. At Koerner library: PQ7081 A1 R316 2007.
    Various references to Rodriguez.
  • "Rodriguez, Carmen Laura", BC Author Bank, BC Bookworld, retrieved 2008-09-19.
  • Rodriguez, Carmen (October 23, 1997), "A truth despots and writers share", The Vancouver Sun, pp. A21, retrieved 2008-09-29{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
    Editorial, though may be simply extract from and a body to remember with.

I copied the above over from the article itself. We do need to look for more and better sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked in the library and found nothing relevant to Rodriguez - many Latino/Latina writers seem to be covered but unfortunately not ours. I think we'll have to include what we found online so far and wait until we interview her on Thursday (Oct. 2) to see if she brings newspaper articles, etc. --Mstmaurice (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked in the library as well, and though I am finding myself in the same dilemma. The only moderately successful items I have found pertain to different people of the same name (one a Mexican anthropologist, the other a murderer from New York). Like Mstmaurice said, it looks as if we might have to wait for Rodriguez's interview.--Exclamationpoint (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) OK, above I tracked down a bunch of possible sources. My search wasn't exhaustive, however. (For instance, I didn't look for any Spanish-language reviews, which will undoubtedly be found in Chilean newspapers and journals.) You can try some more databases. You might also want to get some general information about Chilean-Canadians and how they arrived here. I think that that could be useful. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on bibliography. I recognize that the kinds of sources available for this article are different on the whole from those required for the others. On the other hand, it was far from impossible to get hold of sources: my first step was simply to search the database of the Vancouver Sun and then to move on to other newspapers via EBSCO. I'm sure that more sources can be found in similar ways, or by using a bit of imaginative searching. (If you're still stumped, feel free to come and see me.) I also know that you're going to see Rodriguez this week, which shows initiative and should provide you with more ideas. So well done, but keep at it. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

upgrade to C class

[edit]

I've just upgraded this to C-class. It's probably not far from B-class, in fact. (See the Wikipedia grading scheme.) Well done! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sourcing issue

[edit]

We need a little more to work with regarding the following source: "(p. 134, Now Magazine, toronto, june 5 1992)"

Specifically, we need the author, title, and full page range. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed that - the article is only on p.134 and the author is John Oughton. I had little time to format the citations for that section, I've got information from another source too. I'll be tweaking with this tonight. --Mstmaurice (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need the title, too! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And with this source, it's unclear to me if the entire article is pages 8-9, or if that particular quotation is pages 8-9. If the former, we also need to know the page that the quotation comes from; if the latter, we also need to know the pages of the full article. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We also need volume and issue numbers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, must be out of it today. The title for the Oughton Article is "Rodriguez mirroring bilingual life". The article in prism magazine is only on page 8-9, with quotations from both pages in our article. I'll add the specific page numbers next to the quotation in the text, if that helps. The volume and issue numbers aren't available on the photocopy that I have - but I've emailed the magazine editor in order to get that information. If I don't hear back by the time I make it to campus tomorrow, I will look it up in the library, as they do have the copies of that magazine. --Mstmaurice (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the title. Yes, do indicate specific page numbers for quotations. I'm a teensy bit surprised that the volume and issue number aren't on the photocopy, but there we go. Yes, I already saw that the library has the journal's full run. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added a new source from the Canadian National Poetry Magazine - I know I'm missing the volume and issue but I'm working on getting those. --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception Section

[edit]

I was wondering how long/detailed this section should be. This article focuses primarily on Carmen Rodriguez, not her works specifically. On that note, should a very thorough summary of her criticism be included, or should they be briefly summarized, with links to the articles on those works? In my opinion, the article on a specific work should focus more thoroughly on the criticism, however, since they don't exist I'm not sure if it's our job to include it. In the spirit of making this article as comprehensive as it could be, I'm tempted to include a lot of detail. However, I'm not sure what Wikipedia's guidelines and recommendations for this are. Thoughts? --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: should we also include a section briefly summarizing her major works? --Mstmaurice (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to go about this is to gather the information, add it to the article, and remove it to subarticles if it appears to make the article unbalanced. The article is not yet very long, so I would err on the side of inclusion. Yes, I'd also include a section summarizing her major work; in fact, if you do that first you may find you have a framework which you can expand with the more detailed critical responses as you locate them. Mike Christie (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

[edit]

Jon let me know y'all were ready for someone to take a look at the article. Here are some notes; this is less detailed than I would do for a GA review, but should give you some ideas on how a GA reviewer might react. I've done a more detailed job on the lead to give you a sense of the sort of things reviewers look at. I should also add that my comments are to some extent aimed at FA quality; many reviewers would let you get to GA without fixing more than half or three quarters of what I'm pointing out here.

  • The third sentence of the lead is an unadorned quote; I think you did this because it says exactly what you want to say, and you don't want to plagiarize so you put it in quotes, but it sure looks weird. I think you need to paraphrase it. Generally, quotes are fine, but you have three in the lead, including a long one towards the end. That's a little too much. Your job is to assemble, not to repeat. You should use a quote because you have a structure in mind for the article, and the quote illuminates the argument or information that you are providing at any given point. Don't use quotes to substitute for the connective tissue of the article; they're Christmas tree ornaments (sorry about mixing my metaphors here), not the branches of the tree. In line with that, I'd say the "tips of my tongue" quote is a perfect quote to use; it's arresting, vivid, clearly can't be paraphrased, and illuminates the previous material wonderfully. The previous sentence, from the Writers' Union of Canada, doesn't have any reason to be in a quote -- put it in your own words. Or better yet, forget what they say, construct your own sequence of sentences explaining what's interesting about Rodriguez's translation, and then drop the quote in to highlight the point.
  • Watch out for redundancy -- particularly at FAC people will want you to get the knife out and cut this sort of thing: "However," and "unlike other authors" and "sets herself apart" are three separate phrases with the same intent. Each of them sets the reader up for a contrast. You could cut any two of them (perhaps with a little smoothing).
  • "According to an interview": you don't need to say this -- that's one of the benefits of inline citation: your sources are visible at the bottom of the article and you generally don't have to mention them. The exception is when you are citing opinions, e.g. "According to Joe Critic, Carmen Rodriguez is the finest writer in the history of the universe". Take a look at some other featured articles on literary topics and you'll see the way opinions get cited.
  • The source for that interview, unfortunately, is going to be challenged as unreliable. You might, just might, get by at GA with it, as it does seem almost certain that it is a real interview. The problem is not that it seems bogus, but that the nature of the geocities site means that it is completely possible for anyone to fake anything they want. I could put up a geocities site tomorrow with lots of fake info about Rodriguez; how would you know? An interview in the New York Times or other reliable source is subject to editorial oversight, and is not fakeable in the same way. So I think you're going to have to drop that site. I gather from the talk page you've inquired if the author has published it anywhere. If they haven't you could ask Rodriguez if the interview was published (or in fact if she can point you to any other interviews).
  • When you get close, get someone in your group to go through with a copyeditor's mindset. This means not getting mentally involved in the argument that's being made, but reading for typos, punctuation errors, missing words, illogical flow, and so on. A couple of copyediting suggestions for the last paragraph of the lead:
    • I'd suggest making it "an honorary mention" rather than just "honorary mention"; seems a more natural phrase.
    • "in 1988 or 1989": it seems odd that you wouldn't know when she began to write again. You don't have room in the lead to give background to this odd statement, so assuming it's accurate that you don't know, I'd suggest making this "the late 1980s". That avoids raising a question in your reader's mind that you are not going to answer at this point.
    • Generally, the lead needs to serve as a summary of the article. This works both ways; there shouldn't be anything in the lead that's not in the article, but also the lead should contain at least a summary reference to every significant part of the article. Currently your lead doesn't talk about her influences or mention any of her major works, for example, both of which you discuss below.

OK, that's enough on the lead. That's a pretty detailed critique, please don't freak out! I just did it that way to give you an idea of the way you should think about your own prose.

For the rest of the article, here are some much shorter impressions.

  • Bio section, looks like a solid start. Several "according to" notes that you can cut. Last few sentences are clearly just dropped in from various sources and aren't integrated very smoothly yet. You mention Bolivia and Argentina in the first part; no need to repeat it later. Think about linking or explaining some of the material; what is the Aquelarre Collective for example? A writers' group? A pro-scuba diving organization? Inquiring minds want to know.
  • Influences -- doesn't really read like an influences section; it's good stuff but after the first couple of sentences it's about the translation, which I agree needs to be there. What actually influenced her? I had a look on WP:FA for literary articles with "influences" sections and to my surprise found that a lot of the writer articles don't have one. Here's one that does; J. R. R. Tolkien#Influences, which I actually think is a bit choppy, but will give you an idea of the sort of thing that goes in a section like this.
  • Work with native literacy -- I know she does this, but bear in mind that if you don't have sources about it it's not notable. You don't have to cover it unless it's covered by the secondary sources.
  • Books -- these need some expansion of course. There should be some information about the books' topics and themes, and something about critical reception.

You can try putting in boiler plate titles for sections, such as "Critical reception", and then researching under those headings. To get past that stage, though, I'd suggest that you work in the other direction: look at what your research and reading has uncovered, and decide for yourself what a good compromise is between what a reader of your article has a right to expect (a bio, a list of works) on the one hand, and on the other hand how you think the material you've found should be organized.

I've probably gone on too long. I hope that's useful! Feel free to ask questions or disagree, here or on my talk page -- I have this page on my watchlist so I'll see anything you post.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very thorough and helpful. It definitely gives a good sense in what direction and style we need to head towards. Thanks, Mike! --Mstmaurice (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Mike! We will get on this asap! --Exclamationpoint (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aquellera Collective sources

[edit]

Thanks for all your help, Mike. As for a description of the Aquellera collective, I've found two sources which describe the collective. The first is this website: [1],specifically this page [2] (sorry, I don't know how to add hyperlinks to words.) I'm not sure how reputable that site is. I also found this paper, [3] which does describe the collective but says the paper cannot be cited without permission. I tired to contact the author but the email address failed. --Mstmaurice (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick search but didn't find anything better. If you know anyone who can translate the Dutch site it would work, but for now I'd suggest not worrying about it -- if you find your secondary sources mention the Aquelarre Collective, you will probably find out more about it then; if they don't think it's interesting you can probably drop it. Another option, given that it's a magazine, is to obtain it through your university library and cite the primary source. Alternatively, do you have a way to search for reviews of papers published in Aquelarre? I did a quick search in Google Scholar, but my Spanish is limited to restaurant menu items so I was unable to assess the results.
By the way, to link an external link to a word, you do this:
[http://www.google.com This is the link text]
Typing that in will give you: This is the link text. Basically, anything after a space is the link text. Mike Christie (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the outside chance that someone is still tracking this article, I wanted to ask if you think it's worthwhile to link to the digitized issues of the magazine Aquelarre that the Collective published. You can find it here [4]. alally 22 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alallywa (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne reference

[edit]

Is the Shayne book forthcoming? Are you citing a manuscript copy? That's OK, I think, but we need to know. Please clarify. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is forthcoming. She says it's "getting close to finishing". I found her paper and said that the author's permission must be given, which is why I initially contacted her. This is what she said for citing: "Please cite them as listed on the title page and use the chapter titles in ea doc. Also, just a heads up before printing, the biblio is almost 60 pages. Please send me your final version.
Also, if you can put a link to my first book when you cite me that would be great. Here it is: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/acatalog/__The_Revolution_Question_1418.html" --05:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did you find it? Is this up on the web somewhere? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it by doing some searches on Google. The result was a url of her website, where the paper was hosted. After contacting her, she sent me different sections of the book, including an updated one of the one I found online. www.julieshayne.net/Paper_Exile_feminism.doc is the original I've found, the rest are .pdfs that she's emailed to me. --Mstmaurice (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. (And I got your email, too.) So long as we make clear that this is forthcoming (and she does seem to have a book contract), then I think this is OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronolgy of biography

[edit]

The biography section still has some editing that needs to be done - I'm just not sure if we should add sub-sections for her original arrival to Canada, then her return to Latin America, and then her return to Canada and current life. Text from the 1st Canada section would have to be moved down, I'm just not sure if we should do it chronologically. I think we have enough content to reasonably fill each section, however I'm not sure what the best way would be to do it. Thoughts? --Mstmaurice (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've moved stuff around and like the way the section is for now, but if someone feels different about it please let me know! --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work with native literacy section

[edit]

I can't seem to find much secondary info on her work with this, other then her actual work. I'm not sure if this counts, maybe we could use it as a description. However, I do believe this work is significant and has had an impact on BC schools. I understand, though, that if there are no sources on it it won't be considered notable. Should we remove the section entirely or would it be possible to fill it with information found in her publications on the topic? --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the section until more evidence is found. --19:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

B class upgrade and a suggestion

[edit]

I've upgraded this to B class. I cut one sentence from the lead: "After her flight to Canada, it was over a decade before she began to write seriously again." It was tagged with a "citation required" tag, and B class does require reasonably good referencing, so I felt it was best just to move it here and let you figure out what to do with it. Ideally you'd be able to cite a source saying this directly, but short of that you can include a list of major works and then the statement becomes uncontroversial if there's a gap from 1974 to 1984.

A possible next step would be to take whatever critical material you have on her major works -- which appear to be and a body to remember with and Guerra Prolongada, going by the current version of the article -- and create sections that discuss each of these works specifically. Once you've assembled some critical material in each of these sections you may find that there are critical comments that go beyond the individual works that you can extract for a summary critical reception section. Mike Christie (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover

[edit]

This book cover is still under copyright. To include it in the article, we need a compelling reason (see WP:NFCC for Wikipedia's policy on non-free images). Usually we only include book covers in the articles about those books. We would need something about the cover itself and its relationship to the author to be able to include it here. I did not see any information of that sort in the article, so I have put the image up for deletion. Awadewit (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about this. Alas, our Russian friend isn't around (though I fear I know what he would say...). But it seems fair enough to me that where there is no article about the book in question, the image should be fair use in the article devoted to the author. What do you think? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually read up on these rules now and I don't think so, especially since the only purpose was illustration. There is no need to visually identify the book in this article. Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone has created a one-line stub for And a body to remember with in order to save the fair use image! How ridiculous. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, actually that was me! Though I did it ages ago (and I'd forgotten I'd done it...), not for the image as I remember. Actually, I can't quite remember why I did it... Oh yes, because exclamation point had done up an entire infobox for the book, which clearly didn't fit in Rodriguez's article, but I thought I'd put it somewhere. OK, but the image definitely goes. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm unfamiliar with these rules, it does make sense to me that since we don't relate the cover illustration to anything factual or relevant, the picture serves merely as eye-candy. I'm not sure if that warrants its removal, but I'll try to see if I can find an answer on my end, although it seems Awadewit is knowledgeable about these rules. --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can't use the image in this article - see WP:NFCC. Those are the rules for non-free images. Since the image doesn't contribute "significantly" to the reader's understanding of the topic, we can't include it. Also, note the tag accompanying the image - it says "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Awadewit (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's an issue resolved, thanks! --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:El Aquelarre (1797-1798).jpg

[edit]

Any connection between this Goya image and the magazine? (Looking for public domain images.) Awadewit (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at our article, Awadewit. To be honest, my knowledge of art is non-existent. I've been trying to figure out what "aquelarre" means, whether defined in Spanish or translated in English. I've looked in a dictionary and online, and the one result I got was "sabbath". I'm not sure what the image alludes to, so I can't confirm whether its relevant or not. What do you think? Again, thanks for taking a look at our article, and I look forward to discussing what improvements could be done with you soon! --Mstmaurice (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense for Goya - see Witches' Sabbath. I don't know about Rodriguez and religion, though. Was it serious, ironic, what? Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm from what I gather I don't think religion is a considerable element to Rodriguez's life... It's not really mentioned in any of the sources we've found, nor did she talk about it when we interviewed her. Neither is religion a major theme in and a body to remember with. As for its relevance to the magazine, I'm not sure. The main purpose of the magazine was to raise awareness about female issues and injustices, and Chilean issues. The irony, though, could be that those involved with the magazine put so much time and work into it that it became ironic to refer to the magazine as "a day of rest". However, there's no sources on this, and my connection could be a stretch. --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bust on that image, then. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it, but I appreciate the effort to look it up. Maybe we could include a magazine cover, but that would probably fall under the same scrutiny as the and a body to remember with book cover. --Mstmaurice (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carmen Rodriguez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA criteria:

  • 1a: The writing in this article is, at times, unclear. I have pulled out sentences that need to be clearer below.
  • 1b: This lead of this article does not follow WP:LEAD.
  • 2b: There are citation needed tags in the article.
  • 3a: There are areas of the Rodriguez's life and writing that need to be covered in greater depth - I have tried to point to some of these below. We also need to discuss the availability of sources regarding this issue.
Lead

*The lead is not a summary of the article per WP:LEAD (please read the linked page - it provides good tips for how to write these tricky sections). Leads should be standalone sections - some people only read the lead, you know! (Note: the lead does not even mention Rodriguez's major works.)  Done --

  • Infoboxes are not required on Wikipedia - have you considered why this information is here? How does it help the readers? Also, is "Chilean" an ethnicity?
    • Maybe we should change the content, but I think that the info box provides a good quick glance and who the person is and what they're notable for. Are you suggesting we get rid of it entirely? I've seen them on FA biographies. --Mstmaurice (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got rid of the "Chilean" ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure of "Chilean-Canadian" as nationality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You guys are the pros at this, but I'd like to suggest that "Chilean" can, and should be considered an ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined as "a group with a common national or cultural tradition", which I think is evident with Chile. I think Chilean can fall under an ethnicity, however, if nationality is a better fit then I'm fine with that. Am I just being too nit-picky? :)--Mstmaurice (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is one reason I don't like these infoboxes. They are certainly not present on all FA biographies. I don't use them precisely because of debates like these. What about eliminating the "ethnicity" field entirely? What does it really add? Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • By all means, I'm not trying to incite quarrel or debate, I'm simply trying to learn about Wikipedia :). I personally think ethnicity is a way of people to define themselves, and Rodriguez defines herself as Chilean (although it could be nationality). In either case, I don't care much about whether the info box is there or not, I just wasn't sure if they were a standard on Wikipedia. --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent:) A couple of points... First, a point of fact. Does not Rodríguez rather firmly define herself as "a Chilean-Canadian writer" in the intro to and a body to remember with? Second, "Chilean-Canadian" is not a nationality; presumably she is both Chilean and Canadian, in that I believe she has both passports. Third, we have put this article in the category "Chilean Canadians." We've also put her in the categories "Canadian poets" (but no Chilean poets) "Canadian women writers" (but not Chilean women writers) and "People from Valdivia" (but not people from Vancouver). Fourth, the problem with infoboxes is that they simplify dreadfully. On the other hand, sometimes such simplification is helpful. But fifth... there are still more important things to do on this article! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

In general, the biography needs to provide more context and explanation for the reader. Remember, the reader doesn't already know about Rodriguez!

  • Carmen is the youngest of her siblings, and has two older brothers, one of whom died while in exile in Canada.[9] Carmen's generation was the first in her family to attend university. - These sentences need to be better integrated into the narrative of Rodriguez's life. The mention of Canadian exile is confusing for the reader, for example, who doesn't already know the story of Rodriguez's life. Also, mentioning that Rodriguez's generation was the first to go to college makes little sense since the article doesn't mention that she went to college.
  • During part of her time in Chile, Rodriguez taught at the University of Chile in Santiago as an English language professor in the Faculty of Philosophy and Education.[2] While attending the University of Chile, Rodriguez married her first husband at 18. - Did she teach and attend at the same time? This is confusing? Try to include dates for these events.
  • Although she did not belong to any official political parties at the time, she did express support for the socialist project, which resulted in the addition of her name to the military's list of "people required to turn themselves in" - What was this list? You need to explain this in more detail for the reader.
  • The quotes from Rodriguez in the "Chile" section seem like the rhetorical flair of her writing - can't you find something more specific?
  • Explain the Chilean Coup of 1973 to readers in a few sentences - as this was a defining moment in Rodriguez's life, it is important that readers understand the event.

-- Done

  • I still think more needs to be done here. You need to explain that the Allende administration was overthrown by Pinochet. I'm unsure about mentioning the Cold War politics. You might ask Jbmurray about whether that aspect should be mentioned. Awadewit (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While in Canada, Rodriguez had her Chilean passport seized as a result of her outspoken views on crimes against Chilean human rights. - Wow! Surely there is more information on this available? Perhaps a news story in the student newspaper of the University of British Columbia or the local Vancouver paper? What were her views exactly?
  • Even though you cannot explain what Rodriguez did for MIR, you can still explain what it is - it would be important to stress that it is associated with Marxism, for example. I suggest that you do a bit of research on this group and add a few sentences about it into the article. You need to give some more context to Rodriguez's actions.
  • Rodriguez and her family returned to Vancouver in 1984, where they currently reside.[1] She then divorced her husband, and started a relationship with a Canadian man named Bob, who is now deceased. - The same Bob she went to Argentina and Bolivia with in the 1970s? Something doesn't make sense here.
  • The second paragraph of "Return to Canada" sounds too much like a resume - you need to explain what Rodriguez was doing in these positions and when she held them. Most importantly, this information needs to be integrated into the narrative of her life. Right now, it just seems tacked on.
Influences
  • Rodriguez has been most influenced by her political exile from Chile - If this is true, I would think that there would be a subsection explaining how this political exile has affected her writing.
  • How has Rodriguez's politics and her involvement with revolutionary movements affected her writing?
    • same as above... there doesn't seem to be explicit connections in our sources between her life and her writing. From reading her works and meeting with her, it's evident that it's true. But if none of the sources speak of it - then I'm not sure how to prove it's true. --Mstmaurice (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct - you can't prove it. This is most disappointing, as it means that the article will manifestly lack information. Well, here is a place where scholarly work can be done, Jbmurray! :) Awadewit (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aquelarre magazine
  • This section mentions that the magazine is for "South American" women as well as "Latin American" women. Which is it?
Major works
  • Describe and a body to remember with a bit more - what are the short stories about?
  • The Spanish version of the book is entitled De cuerpo entero and was, like the English version, also published in 1997, though the works are subtly different - How are they different?
  • Rodriguez's book, in both languages, focuses on the experiences of migration and immigration of women, making sure to assess the physical and emotional adjustments that must be made, adding another woman and thus another body to the book - What does "adding another woman and thus another body to the book" mean?
  • All of the main characters in both De cuerpo entero and and a body to remember with are women, and with each story Rodriguez's use of the body, "the fullness of the body, its terrible fragmentation, or the body as a void" is used to express the experiences of the characters. - This will be hard for the reader to understand - does the source offer an example that you can use for illustration?
  • Rodriguez often purposely defragments the voices and bodies of her protagonists to give a sense of urgency - "defragments"? Are you sure? I was sensing a fragmentation from the previous sentence (this is a far more common theme in modern literature, too - postmodernism and all that).
  • Could we quote from one of the poems in a quote box?
  • I'm thinking we should have a quote in Spanish and a quote in English, since writing in both languages is so important to her.
  • Is there any material that discusses her poetic style?
General comments
  • There are some "citation needed" tags.
  • Be sure that all of the parenthetical citations are turned into footnotes and the articles are cited in the "References" section.
  • Rodriguez sometimes has an accent over the "i" and sometimes doesn't - this should be fixed throughout the article.
  • In general, I did have not a very good idea of who Rodriguez was as a person or a writer (but particularly as a writer) after reading this article. The problem lies, I think, in the sources. The research seemed very thin for this article - there are seven articles listed in the "References" section and two are by the subject of the article. It is going to be hard to write a truly excellent article without more sources. I see that back in September Jbmurray offered to help this group find more sources - have you taken him up on his offer?
On sources, I think we're close to the limit of what there is available. The most important is clearly Canadian Cultural Exchange: Translation and Transculturation, but in general the topic of Latino writing in Canada has not to date attracted much attention (this is now changing). However, given ongoing discussion at WT:FAC, I'm thinking that we need to have some kind of "context" section, perhaps mining that same source some more. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NB, though, it would certainly seem worth getting hold of the book that Rodriguez mentions in the Prologue to and a body to remember with: The Other woman : women of colour in contemporary Canadian literature / edited by Makeda Silvera. Toronto : Sister Vision, 1995. In Koerner at PS8090.5.W6 O74 1995.
And I've mentioned looking for sources that can provide some kind of contextualization. (Above: "You might also want to get some general information about Chilean-Canadians and how they arrived here.") Here, for instance, is one such source on Chilean-Canadian literature: Chilean literature in Canada: a bilingual anthology = Literatura Chilena en Canada / editor, Naín Nómez. Ottawa : Ediciones Cordillera, 1982. Koerner PQ8093.C3 C55 1982.
This source proved to be unfruitful; it merely provides the works of a few Chilean Canadians with barely any background on the authors, excluding Rodriguez (it was before her time, I think). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstmaurice (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, see also the unused sources in your bibliography (above), e.g. Carrasco, Decter, Díaz and Etcheverry, Hazelton (the main man on Latin American literature in Canada), Liddell, Macdonald, Montes Garcés, and the Arc Review of Guerra prolongada/protracted war. That's a lot of unused sources! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure I've use Arc a few times in this article; will look into the other ones --Mstmaurice (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this article on hold for one week. I'm sure this review seems a bit disheartening, but I have no doubt that with a few all night research parties at the library (Jb, are you up for pizza?) this article will look much better and the reader will come away from it with a much clearer understanding of Rodriguez. If you have any questions about my comments, please do ask. We are here to help. Awadewit (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, thank you. I'm impressed by the thoroughness of this review. I agree that we need to work on the biography section. Personally, I find it difficult to write about the events in her life while providing a chronological narrative, but with some time I'm sure (read: hope) I can work out the kinks. I find that many of the issues you point out regarding sections that are too general, or lack examples, or could use expansion exist primarily because of a lack of sources. Many of the sentences you point out are a paraphrasing of the sources we do have, and, for the most part, they do not provide further explanation or examples. I'll offer specific examples as I go through it more thoroughly. As for a discussion of her poetic style or a summary of what the stories are about, this is something we could do ourselves after reading her works, but I'm almost positive that this would be considered original research, making it inapplicable to wikipedia. I know both I and Exclamationpoint spent some time searching in the library and online catalogs to no avail. We'll get going through this step by step though, and I'll be sure to discuss my questions with you and jbmurray. Here's hoping we can work this one out, thanks again! --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Awadewit! This is very helpful, but as Mstmaurice said, we have a lack of sources...its been very hard to find them, with Rodriguez being the greatest source of information with the interview Mstmaurice and I had with her. However, we are unable to use that three hours of information as a source. Do you have any suggestions or is there any possible way we could use this information we recorded or is that completely out of the question? --Exclamationpoint (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I've talked to the people at UBC library, and they have an open-access repository online to which (they have suggested) your interview could be added. (See here for an example!] Give me the audio file, and I'll see what I can do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And see above for my comments on sources, including the unused ones from your current bibliography. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some questions here but I can't seem to get them to show up on this page. --Mstmaurice (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to the question about ethnicity above. Perhaps you forgot to save? Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that could be it. I'll be careful next time. --Mstmaurice (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is everything going here? I see Jb unearthed a few more sources. Hopefully those will help flesh out the article a bit. Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can extend the GA hold here, if editors are going to continue working to improve the article. Would another week help? Awadewit (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. We got our hands on a couple books and I was finally able to extract our interview with her from a recorder as an mp3 file. I attempted to post it on our library's site, but it looks like I'll need Jb's help to do that as I wasn't able to. This should be done tomorrow. --Mstmaurice (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you will be able to use the interview, even if it is on your library's site. It will be considered a self-published source (WP:SPS). We restrict the use of self-published sources quite tightly, as they have not been fact-checked or peer-reviewed. Work on getting the most out of the published, reliable sources you have. Awadewit (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please. Thank you!--Exclamationpoint (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a slowdown in editing this article. Please let me know if I need to extend the GA hold or not. Awadewit (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for closure

[edit]

Due to the backlog at GAN, I am recommending that this article be failed because it has not addressed all the issues brought up in this review. Generally, editors have about 1 week (seven days), and while there is always room for leeway, the editors here have had twice as long, and still seem to be in the process of drastically imporving the article. Once the concerns brought up by the review have been addressed the contributors would be more than welcome to renominate it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the reviewer when to close reviews. The backlog has nothing to do with it. Geometry guy 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the middle of our final exams over here.. I have a bit of a break so here I go working on it. Hopefully I can address many of the concerns now. --Mstmaurice (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the editors are working to improve the article, I will keep it open. However, as I know that they are working on the article for a college course, I have to make a decision before the end of the semester so their professor can calculate their grades. I will therefore have to make a decision in one week. Awadewit (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very close to passing, but is not quite there. Note that there are still "citation needed" tags, incomplete references, and a few places (listed above) where the article doesn't make sense. These need to be fixed before I can pass the article. If these are not fixed in the next day, I will have to fail the article. Awadewit (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since these issues are still unresolved, I'm sorry to say that I'm going to have to fail the article. Awadewit (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

What happened to the picture of Rodriguez? Awadewit (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any free images of Pinochet or Allende we could use in the "Chile" section? Other ideas for images there? I've added a flag, but it is not he most imaginative choice. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an image of Pinochet. I've replaced the lame flag. Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picture of Pinochet looks great. The picture of Rodríguez was deleted... the author gave us permission to use it specifically for our wikipedia project. After uploading it we realized this isn't sufficient. I've emailed Rodriíguez to try to get the author (her daughter) to release the picture under creative commons or to release it completely into the public domain; I'm still waiting to hear back. Mstmaurice (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Awadewit (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carmen Rodríguez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carmen_Rodríguez&oldid=1206561062"