Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The General in His Labyrinth/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The General in His Labyrinth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and has an active group of editors who could take it to FA: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem.


Thanks, Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

General comment - great article. Specific points...

  • Lose the full stop in the caption for the jacket in the lead -the caption's a fragment so full stop is not needed.
Fixed! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people don't cite the lead at all, some cite it all, I'd go for one or the other. In general you develop concepts that you introduce in the lead in the main body and reference there. At the moment the lead has an awkward mix of cited and uncited claims.
Is this still a problem if there are only 2 citations in the lead? Eshiu (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about images so if someone could help us fix this! Thanks! Eshiu (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... from childhood. [4] " remove space before the ref.
Done! Eshiu (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most importantly, he worked closely ..." most importantly according to whom? POV warning!
I changed this to 'furthermore', I think that's better right? Eshiu (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with the diacritics with Simon/Simón.
Okay fixed all of them Carlaty (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot starts well with decent sized paras and becomes a group of short sentences. Consider improving the prose there.
Already cut down some, will try to improve even more. Eshiu (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you should bullet point the main characters as most movie articles do. You've bolded them already... not sure what's best.
Changed the format of the characters section, like The President's FA page. Eshiu (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't bother bolding the minor characters (unless I'm treading on the toes of a Wikiproject MOS of which I'm unaware of course!)
Done! Eshiu (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Challenging History section should be "Challenging history" and the (pg. x) need to be turned into {{Cite book}} references really.
Fixed! (I think that's what is meant by the pg.x comment, I removed bracket and put citation) Eshiu (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Netherlands: Melenhoff, 3rd ed.. " - one spare .
Sorry, I don't understand what is wrong here? Is it the extra period? Eshiu (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll need to eliminate the ??'s in the references for FA.
Quite sure I've taken out or replaced all the ??s. Eshiu (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be enough to start the ball rolling! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Rambling Man! We'll get to those suggestions. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yomangani

It's a good article and should be ready for FAC soon with a little work. Some general comments:

  • ****** The plot summary is too detailed. What information is important here? Do we need to know about the stray dog taken on board? Or the rain spoiling his party? An overly detailed plot summary often indicates that the analysis is weak. Try to cut it to be more of an outline rather than a retelling of the story, and work the important details into the commentary that follows. If the rain is important it can be mentioned in the analysis (as indeed it is). ******
I cut the plot summary down to 773 word and removed some details that I think may be unnecessary. I think the rest is quite important but if there is anything that still seems irrevelant, please let me know! Eshiu (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. Yomanganitalk 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ****** The character sections are weak. The bolding is ugly and the explanation of Bolívar as "the subject of this novel" is clumsy. It would be better to try and expand on the roles of the characters in the novel rather than in real life. ******
    • To clarify: at the moment it is not clear what traits, characteristics, and events in the characters' lives are fictional/part of the novel and which are historical facts. Yomanganitalk 00:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely know this section needs to be expanded and will try to do so as soon as possible. I just changed the format of it slightly to mimic The President's page. Their FA star makes me soo jealous. But gives me motivation! Eshiu (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see you expanding this section but it still very unclear what is from real life and what is from the novel. Yomanganitalk 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the character section again, and what is written is all from the book. I guess why it is so confusing is because Garcia Marquez based so much of it on facts. So Im not sure if/how to change it if it still needs to be changed. Carlaty (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to link important people and concepts on their first occurrence and avoid repetitively linking the same articles.
  • Try to work Dictator novel into the text, so you can lose the single "See also"
  • I'm not sure of the merits of the translation history - personally I'd drop that section. You have commentary on the English translation in the "Reception" section, and I'd be tempted to roll the publication up there in a condensed form.
  • Try to use a single style of quote mark in your quotes. You have "curly" and normal quote marks mixed at the moment.Also check the diacritics in the quotes - there are lots of "Garcia Marquez" rather than "García Márquez"
  • Some of the analysis sections ("Postmodernism" and "Challenging history") rely on a single author - try to avoid this if possible. "Postmodernism" in particular could do with some illustrations from the novel.
  • There is discussion on the geographical backtracking and labyrinthine twisting and turning in the analysis, but the plot summary doesn't reveal that. An map of the route would be a great help here (rather than the rather poor map that includes the river) - I'll try and knock up a map for you - do they really go from Honda to Puerto Real without a stop?

More detailed comments (roughly in order):

  • "By choosing to portray Bolívar's life the way he does, García Márquez summarizes so much: the life of a great man, an era, a culture." - using this as the summary of the novel's achievement comes over as a little lazy and unbalanced. Give us something on the reception to the novel as a novel in the next paragraph instead.******
Removed this sentence, will try to replace with something else later. Eshiu (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a negative influence on the outside world - what does this mean? "presenting a negative image to the outside world" perhaps? - used that phrasing
  • At the time, García Márquez had a greater interest in writing about the Magdalena River... - greater interest in writing about the river than writing about Bolívar? greater interest in writing about the river than Mutis had? greater interest in writing about the river than anything else? - rephrased
  • ***** García Márquez chose a detailed documentary approach...He chose to do so because he believed that most of the information available on Bolívar was one-sided - how do these two aspects tie together? How does adopting a documentary approach solve this problem? Is it really a documentary approach? Surely he has departed from the documents? *****
I'm not sure how to improve this, I believe Carlaty had paraphrased this from the source. And though I do agree that it isn't really quite a documentary since it is a fictional account, but I'm not sure how to reword the sentence. Eshiu (talk) 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the intent as I genuinely don't understand how the two tie together. Maybe Carlaty can reword it. Yomanganitalk 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that those sentences don't really go well together, nor did it fit under the background section to begin with, so I just took it out. I hope its fine now! Sorry for the delay!!! Carlaty (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...it is the "least documented period in Bolívar's life", and also because he lacked "experience and method in historical research". - these quotes don't reveal anything that can't be incorporated into the text by rephrasing. - reworded
  • fellow Colombian and historian Eugenio Gutiérrez Celys, who co-wrote a book called Bolívar Día a Día with historian Fabio Puyo; - did he co-write the book during the period that García Márquez was consulting him? If not it should read had co-written. Was Puyo consulted?
I fixed this one Carlaty (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • astronomer Jorge Perezdoval, who made an inventory of the occurrence of full moons during the first 30 years of the century - why is this important?
Okay I expanded it and wrote its importance, it seems a bit long though. let me know if i should change it Carlaty (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Napoleonic wars weakened Spain and Portugal's power...Several factors contributed to the destabilization of government and weakened Spain's control over its colonies: Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808...- the first sentence is redundant as the second sentence restates the information in more detail (although omitting Portugal)
Fixed this one Carlaty (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • the American and French revolutions inspired many creoles, American-born descendants of Spanish settlers. - to do what?
fixed! Carlaty (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...led by Simón Bolívar in the north - north of where? -used "northern South America"
  • However, shortly after the liberation movements were completed - what does this mean? (This paragraph could do with a little expansion, it doesn't really give us enough background to be useful)
I fixed that one sentence to make it a bit clearer. I do see your point in the sense that this section can do with some more expanding though Carlaty (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ***** If Bolívar is only called by name once, then the plot summary should follow this usage (and point out when it occurs) *****
I'm still looking for this in the book, hopefully but up by tomorrow. Eshiu (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this, it was at the end of the first chapter and I have mentioned this in the plot summary already. Eshiu (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I've changed the section slightly to use "the General" instead of "Bolívar" on other occurences so it mirrors the novel better (though I've left it as Bolívar when discussing general events). Yomanganitalk 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while opposition continued to increase. - opposition to what and from whom?
I made it "opposition to his precidency continued to increase", I hope that makes it clearer Carlaty (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, they are stopped by old vice regal police - what are old vice regal police?
I've deleted the description as I suppose it's not really that importatnt. But vice regal police are just police that represents the monarch. See viceroy. Eshiu (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to arriving in Turbaco, the group spend a sleepless night in Barranca Nueva, which further weakens the General. He is advised to see a doctor - at what point do they arrive at Turbaco? Between these two sentences or later on?
I think I fixed this and clarified it. Eshiu (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...when empires such as the Soviet Union were disintegrating - which other empires were collapsing at the time? - reworded
  • ...The labyrinth can be related to the concept of a circle, where one gets nowhere as one twists and turns or goes back and forth between walls and circles. - a twisting and turning circle? back and forth between walls and circles? - I've reworded this, but it would be better if you could interpret it more clearly from the source
  • As with almost every other location in the novel, the General had been there before - where?
Re-worded the sentence. Eshiu (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
I think someone took this out at some point, I can't seem to find it in the revision history. Is it better without the part about Homer, or should I incorporate it back in? Eshiu (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took this out because I thought the point about Greek resonances and destiny is brought out well enough in the analysis of the word "devil". And, with all respect to the critic in question, it seems a bit over the top to me to equate a simple epigraph, based on a quote from a letter, with Homer and co. qp10qp (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the General's last hours are marked by the metaphor of an octagonal clock - what is the metaphor here? - reworded
  • ***** and is said to occupy a vital place in the symbology of the Catholic Mass, as Mircea Eliade found "In the novel it represents a symbolic sacrifice aimed at redeeming humankind – that of Bolívar, a misunderstood redeemer sacrificed by his own people." - a couple of queries on this one: 1) is Mircea Eliade being quoted here? 2)The number 3 represents a symbolic sacrifice aimed at redeeming humankind? I assume this is meant to allude to the Trinity and hence the Crucifixion, but this isn't clear since as phrased it seems you are reluctant to make the connection between the number 3 and the Trinity ***** - I've reworded this and assumed Mircea Eliade is being quoted
  • ***** The second paragraph of "Postmodernism" needs to be tied to the novel, rather than just an explanation of one of Alonso's terms *****
I went back to the source and tried to understand this paragraph more and added how I think it relates to the novel. Eshiu (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • García Márquez comments on the state of history - should this be the state of historical research?
I'm not the one who put this section in but I tried checking the source for where it may have been paraphrase and can't really find it. The closest thing I found was "What role do historical contexts play in the literary representation of history?" I think that might be it.. So I just re-worded "the state of history". I think it makes more sense now. Eshiu (talk) 18:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some obvious examples of repetition in García Márquez’ works "include solitude in Cien aizos de soledad, tyranny in El otoizo del patriarca, and Bolivar's desire for a unified continent in El general en su laberinto." - again, the quote adds nothing that couldn't be elucidated better in your own words. reworded with attribution to Hood
  • given an abundance of historical information on the topic and a time period that is unappealing to many in the English-speaking world - the second factor would be likely to lead to poor reception, but why the first?
I think Stavans is trying to say that there was too many historical facts leading to poor reception because most people prefer fiction. I've re-worded it to ahow that both are unappealling. Eshiu (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, Padgett continues, for García Márquez, Latin America has to discover the General’s labyrinth if it is to come to terms with its own maze of problems. - should there be a quote there somewhere?
I've reworded this a bit, and quoted the last few words. Let me know if it seems unnecessary. Eshiu (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Yomanganitalk 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for this! A little daunting, but very helpful indeed! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We really want to get the article to FA!! Are there certain things that we can do immediately to at least get the nomination by Thursday? Or do we have to address everything above before we can get the FA nomination? Like I mentioned on the FA-Team discussion page, we will definitely be putting in a lot more again and be able to address all the above comments after Thursday to get it to FA. (PS, thanks for all your help Yomangan, we're so glad to hear that you think we have a shot at FA) Eshiu (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as overwhelming as it first looks - most of it is trivial copy-editing detail. I've marked what I consider the important points. The chief areas that need attention are the plot summary and the character profiles. When copy-editing I prefer to leave the text as close as possible to the main editors' own phrasing which is why I highlighted some of the points above that could have been eliminated by just being more brutal with the copy-editing. I'll run through it again and give it a more detailed copy-edit - you can always return the any information I remove or correct any if I alter the meaning. Yomanganitalk 08:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some copy-editing items that I've dealt with, but please check them. Yomanganitalk 11:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've addressed all the above comments. Please highlight anything that we may have overlooked or has not been completely fixed. Thanks for the great review! Now onto the next one! Eshiu (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from qp10qp
  • I've done some light copyediting of the first half, but I would likely get the cutting tool out for the criticism sections, so I will hold back now. My feeling is that there is a little too much criticism, with too many quotes, to the point where, for me, the read becomes somewhat stodgy. I felt there were repetitive patches—in the "Figural labyrinth" section, for example—where, in my opinion, the same thing is said several times in different ways. I didn't feel that all the quotes used in the second half of the article were fully digested. There is a difference between literary criticism and encyclopedic content, in my opinion: the latter should be as clear and concise as possible. But I admit it is very difficult to sum up sophisticated literary criticism in neat phrases without sounding glib.
  • The plot summary struck me as a little too long, particularly as the character section contains much plot too. No need to act on this, if the editors are happy; but be on the lookout for it to come up at FAC.
  • In my copy edit, please check The General had asked Sucre to succeed him as President of the Republic, but he rejected the idea, because it only said "he rejected", and I guessed the rest.
I checked, it's right, Sucre did not want to succed him as President. Eshiu (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the lack of a passport prevent the General from leaving, or did he just never get round to leaving? He seems to have wandered all along the coast.
He did receive a passport but later writes to someone saying that he needs a new passport because the one issue by the deposed government is not valid anymore - I added when this in. I think it was both his illness and him not wanting to leave that are the reasons why he didn't leave. And he actually did wander all along the coast. Eshiu (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Labyrinth mirrors the wanderings and travails of the hero in search for meaning and resolution to the vicissitudes of life"[35] such as that in the ancient Greek myth of the Minotaur.[36] Could this be clarified, since the hero conquers the labyrinth and the minotaur in the myth. His real travails come later.
Ive tried rewording this or explaining it, its difficult. I think it will be okay to take it out. What do you think? Carlaty (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't quite follow, for me. I've got this section on my list (shudder of fear) to copyedit today. Please scream if I overdo it: I confess that my approach with anything I don't fully grasp (Theseus was not in a moral labyrinth: rather than a dying old man, he was a vigorous youth who conquered the labyrinth by a single trick), is to copyedit it so that I can understand it. Being a bit slow on the uptake, I admit that this is not the most intellectual strategy in the world. qp10qp (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The labyrinth can be related to a circle, where one gets nowhere as one doubles back on oneself or retraces the same steps. "Just as the Magdalena River winds its way to the sea, Bolívar is drawn through the darkening maze of life, until at the end, just before his final moments, he curses his inability to find a way out of the labyrinth."[1] Thus, the General's final journey is a described as "a hopeless affair" or a "blind man's journey".[37] As I mentioned above, I believe there is some repetition in this section. If you cut this paragraph out entirely, the basic point would still be covered, in my opinion. I don't find this critic's idea that the labyrinth is related to a circle particularly helpful; but that may just be me.
Okay I took the paragraph out. Carlaty (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is beneficial. I'm confident that nothing is lost that isn't said elswhere in different words.qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed some simple information about the plot: which person it's in, for example; does it stay with the General, or are his memories narrated as flashbacks?
Everything was written from a third person piont of view, should that be added to the begining of the plot summary? Carlaty (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so. Also whether there are flashbacks or not. I'm going to borrow the novel on Monday, but these were some of the first things I wondered. For example, when we hear that "General Rafael Urdaneta takes over the government in Bogotá", is that reported to the General, or is he remembering it, or does the narrative leave his journey to depict it? The narrative form or forms should be indicated, I suggest. qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I tried adding that in as the first sentence. It may seem a bit abrupt though. Also, I expounded on some of the comments placed in these <------- ------>. Hopefully its better now. Carlaty (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bolívar's anti-Americanism reflects a sentiment which is still widely reported in Latin America. 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." "Anti-Americanism" strikes me as an ambiguous and possibly anachronistic term here. That whole paragraph comes across to me as choppy.
I quite agree with you on this, but I am not sure how/if it should be reworded. Would you suggest removing it? perhaps putting it into the reception section? There is a sentence that talks about Bolivar's sentiments towards the United States in the Reception section already...Any suggestion on this one would be great Carlaty (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs removing. I have just now reordered it a little to improve the flow of thought and changed "ant-Americanism" to "opposition to the United States", because, after all, Bolívar was an American himself, as is García Márquez. qp10qp (talk)
  • symbology/numerology/metaphor. I found these a little mixed up with each other in the "Symbology of numbers and rituals" section. What is symbology in this context, by the way? I didn't find our article on it helpful as far as this novel's concerned (or in any way lucid at all!): I think it needs to be explained en passant, for oafs like me.
I think I've dealt with this myself. I've copyedited it so that it is easier to understand. qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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:[43] "In the novel it represents a symbolic sacrifice aimed at redeeming humankind – that of Bolívar, a misunderstood redeemer sacrificed by his own people."[42] This strikes me as a bit heavy for an encyclopedia. I didn't understand it, I admit; but that might just be because I haven't read the novel.
I can see why it may appear as too heavy so I've removed this. My only concern now is if it significantly weakened that section. Eshiu (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead up to it is better now, and so it might fit in more acceptably. I'll have another look. qp10qp (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC) qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your concern was well-founded, I think, so I have put it back in. There were edits above and around it which I believe make it fit in nice and snugly now. qp10qp (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Again, this rather lost me. Who or what are "them" here?
I myself am confused about this section. I feel like taking it out. Would it benefit the article to take these couple of sentences out? Carlaty (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it needs copyediting first, so that nouns and verbs agree, and preferably so that there's less of a pile-up of heavy words. After that we can see if it makes sense, after all. If this stuff is part of the criticism on the book, then we have to leave it in in some form. I'll have a go at trying to make it clearer tomorrow, if you and the other editors haven't done so first. (Thanks goodness it's not just me who was a bit lost by that bit.) qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now taken that middle paragraph out, copyedited the rest for clarity, and changed the section title. See the article's talk page. qp10qp (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire novel illustrates the constant confrontation with death that is represented by Bolívar's character. I don't think this really says much, certainly nothing that hasn't already been said.
I took the whole sentence out. Carlaty (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had added that sentence yesterday in response to Yomangan's comment above that the paragraph needed to be tied into the novel. But if you really think it does nothing for the article we can leave it out. Eshiu (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is best out. But I'll have another look.qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • García Márquez is compelling us to move from melancholy to mourning. I think this point was already made earlier.
  • That is, one must always be "...self-conscious of their narratives." I'm not sure "one" can lead to "their" like this. What about "people", or "individuals" (something plural)?
Changed to individuals. Eshiu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borland also argues that in The General in His Labyrinth, García Márquez uses an oral style of narration in order to confront the methods of official historians. The narration can be considered an oral account in that it "consists of the multiple, often contradictory, stories and meanings of the day-to-day verbal interactions of living peoples."[48] Borland explains "the orality of any given culture, residing in the unwritten tales of its peoples, possesses a spontaneity and liveliness which is lost once this culture commits its tales to writing."[48] Thus, the oral style of narration, adds a truthfulness which official history would lack. I didn't feel this point was clearly enough explained. I mean, all novels have conversations in them; but I think of "oral" and "written" as being different things. (As you can tell, I am not a literary expert.)
I've copyedited this in such a way that it now makes sense to me, I hope without oversimplifying it. qp10qp (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I've been trying to reword and explain it for the last 15 minutes and could not get it done. However, when I went to the source, I noticed that the orality of culture quote is actually paraphrase from another source. Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technology of the Word. London: Methuen, 1982. 170-90. I'm not really sure how to change the ref, can someone help out?
OK, I'll sort that. qp10qp (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, do you mean that the quote isn't a quote, or that it is a quote from Borland who is paraphrasing Ong? In other words, do I take out the quotes and cite to Ong, do I leave them in and cite that Ong is paraphrased by Borland, or take them out and cite that Ong is paraphrased by Borland. I'm all labyrinthed here. qp10qp (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh me too. I am taking jbmurray's advice on TGIHL talk page about quoting someone who is quoting someone and I think I might be able to fix it, maybe check it after I'm done. But it is AB who is "quoting"(actually paraphrase) Ong. Like AB writes, "According to Walter Ong..." Eshiu (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only you can tell us what exactly is going on in the source, but as an example of how to quote someone quoting someone else, see for instance footnote 41 in Latin_American_Boom or footnote 53 in Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the source is only paraphrasing, it is not essential to mention the earlier source, unless the idea is seminal, as in note 103 here, and one can't lay one's hands on the original source. qp10qp (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In One Hundred Years of Solitude manuscripts serve as a literary metaphor of the message, telling the reader that " ...only in self-understanding can we meet the challenge of the Latin American predicament." I suspect that "a literary metaphor of the message" is an unsatisfactory way of expressing the point. I don't find it clear.
I think it's a bit confusing because the editor tried to paraphrase and quote. But I've looked at the source, and I don't think it's really useful so I've removed it. I've read the book and I don't understand what the quote is trying to say about the book. Do let me know if someone believes otherwise. Eshiu (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cuts are really improving the article, I think. Wow, this article is getting S H A R P! I believe you can go to FAC tomorrow with a very good chance. My only remaining problems are with the libido stuff and the figural labyrinth stuff. I'll have a go at copyediting them tomorrow: I just think those sections need less quoting and simpler English, while the substance of the points is retained. qp10qp (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is vastly improved, but I'm still having a problem with major character section - it is simply too vague. There is a difficulty (as pointed out above) in that the novel mixes real and fictional events, but it is important to make clear which are being discussed. Perhaps everything there is taken from the novel, but at the moment we have no way of knowing. I'll copy some bits to the talk page and try to highlight what I mean. Yomanganitalk 23:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the submission goes in at the last minute—just before Canada midnight—some of that can be sorted out, if the editors are up for it. I don't believe the character section is necessary, myself. I don't see such a thing in Awadewit's novel articles or Scartol's novel articles: it produces stubby little paragraphs. Of course El Señor Presidente has this section, but the paragraphs are fuller. I note that that article doesn't bother with the minor characters much, and I think this article could lose them to advantage: this would make it easier for the editors to focus on a decent account of the main characters.qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments don't seeem too demanding. They are the sort of thing I would say at an FAC. The great asset of this article is that all the information is there. It is highly comprehensive and obviously the fruit of an enormous amount of background reading and painstaking editing. The granite has been quarried, and it is now just a matter of chipping some bits off here and there. I congratulate the editors for coming this far. I am sure this can become a featured article, but it will probably require plenty more work along the way. qp10qp (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/The_General_in_His_Labyrinth/archive1&oldid=205459516"