User talk:JordiHUBC

Welcome

Greetings...

Hello, JordiHUBC, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography assignment

Hi, here are the details of the MRR annotated bibliography assignment...

Good Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of good sources. In this respect, Wikipedia articles are not much different from academic essays. In fact, if anything a good Wikipedia article is more reliant on good sources than are other academic or scholarly texts. The whole notion of verifiability, which is the first of the encyclopedia's five pillars, depends upon reliable sources.

The aim of this bibliography assignment, then, is to identify, read, and comment on the most important and reliable sources that relate to the topic of your chosen article.

In coordination with your group, you need to do the following:

Identify the most important sources for your topic. These will be both books and articles. They will vary depending upon the kind of topic you have chosen, but to give a couple of examples this book is a key one for the general topic of magic realism, while this biography would be essential for the article on Gabriel García Márquez.
Use databases and the Koerner library catalogue to identify these sources. Look for as many as possible in the first instance; you will later choose between them. On the whole, they will not be online sources (though of course many articles are now available online thanks to JSTOR and other services).
Aim to come up with a long list of, say, 5-20 books and perhaps 15-40 articles. Obviously, for some topics there will be more material than for others. So for some topics you will need to do more searching; for other topics, you will need to be more careful and discerning as you choose between sources. Look far and wide and be inventive in thinking about good sources.
In some cases, the article may already have a number of references, either in the article itself, or perhaps somewhere in its talkpage archives. You should take account of these, but you should still undertake your own search, not least to find new material that has not been considered before.
To figure out what you need, you will also have to look at your article and consider what it is missing, what needs to be improved, where it could do with better sources, etc. In other words, you will have to start planning how you are going to work on and rewrite the article.
Come up with a final short list of c. 2-4 books and perhaps 6-24 articles.
Put the long list (of all the sources you have found) as well as the short list (of the sources you have decided are the most important) on your article's talk page by Wednesday, January 20.
Distribute the sources among the members of your group. Each person should be reading the equivalent of one full book or six articles. Exceptionally long books may be divided up between group members.
Read the sources, bearing in mind the information that is going to be useful as you work on the article. Think about what it covers and take a note of particular page numbers.
Produce an annotated bibliography of the sources you have read. This will consist of a summary or précis of the most important aspects of the texts, which should be at least 150 words long for each article read; 600 words for each book. You should put this on your user page by Monday, February 8.

To coordinate with the other members of your group (whose names you can find here), use their talk pages. Each time that you log in to Wikipedia, you will notice that if you have a message waiting for you, there will be a yellow banner at the top of the page.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Realism Reconsidered

I'm looking forward to working with your class during the semester - if you have any questions about the project or Wikipedia in general, please feel free to leave me a note at User talk:Awadewit. Wikipedians are here to help you! Awadewit (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new group

JordiHUBC, I've now moved you from the Magic realism group to the one working on Alejo Carpentier. The former was too full, and that latter needed more people. Please work on the bibliography assignment accordingly. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good job and word of advice

JordiHUBC, first to say good job on getting going on the assignment and leaving a note on Katie322's page.

But second just to point out that you accidentally deleted my earlier note on that page. If you look here you can see what happened: compare what's on the left there with what's on the right; you've accidentally written over my earlier text.

In this case, it's not a big deal at all (my message was totally banal), and as always on Wikipedia any mistake can be undone--and in fact I've undone it. But this is just a piece of advice to take care; in other cases, you might get rid of something that's not so unimportant.

Though once more: the more you try it out, the easier it gets, and in the end there's no mistake that can't be fixed. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about bibliography

Hey Jordi! I started our official bibliography on the Alejo Carpentier talk page. The sources are in alphabetical order for easy reference and I added a description of how the source might best help our article (ie: sections like 'music', 'style', etc...) in brackets after each source, if you want to do the same (makes it easy to remember what every source is about). I have to go home to look at more books before I add to the shortlist, but please add many more references and add the best ones to the short list before tomorrow. Thanks! Katie322 (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jordi, I got your message, but I'm a little confused. You put the 7-8 sources on our article's TALK page, right? Chances are that all of the sources are now jumbling together in my mind, haha, but I couldn't see your new ones there. Also, be sure to add a few sources to our shortlist. Josie and I are the only ones who have done that so far and we need some more group input :) Thanks! Katie322 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what happened. Your sources went onto the actual article page in the Further Reading section (which is good because the should eventually be there anyways). I've copied them over to the DISCUSSION page (just because they are due today) and added a few to the shortlist (please feel free to add more to the shortlist as I have just added the minimum needed). Also, if you still have the reference information on the sources you found, could you add volume/no./pages/etc. to the articles? If you don't have it, no worries; I'm sure we can find them easy enough. Katie322 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Warfare's comments

Hey Jordi, Check out our article's discussion page. Nuclear Warfare has left some very helpful hints for us regarding cleaning up the article :) Katie322 (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination, photo, and Hanne

Hey-o! I just nominated our article for GA status and also asked Nuclear Warfare if he/she wouldn't mind reviewing it. We should still keep workin on it, especially minor edits such as grammar. As for the photo, I asked Ettrig, Jon, and NW what they thought of the situation, but so far there have been no replies, so I guess we'll just hold tight on that one. On a side note, Hanne told me last night that she has been editing, but for some reason it is not showing up in the history of the article. She has emailed Jon about this to see what to do. If you do your peer review before we hear why this is happening, then maybe just make a note of it or mention it in your review of Hanne. I have no idea why something like that would happen. Buena suerte, amigo! Katie322 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No go on GA, but...

Check the discussion page, we didn't get the GA status. The reviewer gave us some good feedback though and we may be able to resubmit by Tuesday. Hope all is well!--Josiemitchell (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]