Jump to content

Talk:Carmen Rodríguez/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Carmen Rodríguez

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mstmaurice (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 8 December 2008 (→GA Review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.
    • fixed.  Done
  • 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.
  • Consequently, her house was raided, and some of her friends and neighbours were killed - These things happened as a result of her being added to the list?

 Done

  • 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

  • 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?
Aquelarre magazine
  • Is the name of the magazine "Aquelarre" or "Aquelarre magazine" and should it be redlinked? Is it notable enough for its own article? (Perhaps Jbmurray can answer this?)
  • This is the first time we learn about Rodriguez being a part of the Aquelarre Collective - perhaps this should be mentioned in the "Biography" section?
  • The Collective had a common view of the future with "room for life". - I don't understand this.
  • The common themes of the magazine were "women, feminism and strength". - This is vague - can you add any more detail here?
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).
  • While having a strong feminist component to it, Rodriguez does not fail to include other social issues in her writing. - What other social issues?
  • Could we quote from one of the poems in a quote box?
  • Is there any material that discusses her poetic style?
General comments
  • There are some "citation needed" tags.
  • 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

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carmen_Rodríguez/GA1&oldid=256705348"