Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission 1

Request for FA team opinion

I've just posted a GA hold review for Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, and I'd like to get an opinion from someone more informed than I am about one of the points. I suspect that it's very short on coverage of Sarmiento's political career, but knowing nothing about Sarmiento beyond what I read in the article, it's hard for me to be specific. I looked at Benjamin Disraeli as the closest parallel I could think of, and that does have a lot more political detail. I suspect also that the bias in this article is because the students are literature students. Any opinions would be welcome.

It also occurs to me that if in fact there's a need for lots of political detail, that might be a little unfair to those particular students, who didn't sign up for a political history class. That's a question for jbmurray, though! Mike Christie (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This is a good point. Frankly, I don't know much about Sarmiento as politician, either! In the circles I frequent, he's most important for (effectively) founding Argentine literature. A historian of nineteenth-century Latin America may well view him very differently.

I suspect that, in the first instance, this is somewhere where I'll have to step in myself and do a bit of research.

NB that the comparison with Disraeli isn't bad: but nobody reads Disraeli's novels any more, whereas every Argentine would be familiar with Facundo. So I'd say that the balance between the literary and the political is more markedly on the literary side with Sarmiento. On the other hand, Sarmiento undoubtedly saw himself as a politician first, and a writer second. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OT: In the circles I run in, people do read Disraeli's novels. :) But we literary scholars are weird. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

JBM, if you could let me know what you think of the need for broader coverage after you've had the chance to look around a bit, that would be great. I'll work on the other points; there's a day or two of work there regardless. Mike Christie (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some research on Sarmiento today (and the students have also made great strides in response to your GA Review). I'm more convinced than ever that Disraeli is a poor comparison: he's closer to someone like André Malraux. Above all, he's a writer, even though, and unlike most other writers, he also had numerous opportunities to try to put his ideas into practice (in fact on the whole not very successfully, at least while he was president of Argentina!). Anyhow, I've been trying to help on the article to reflect this. I'll be doing more next week. But again, the students are also very much taking the article in the right direction. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK -- I'll trust you to decide when the coverage is broad enough, as you're doing the research. Mike Christie (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which articles are getting attention

Jbmurray has put a progress report here. To help us identify who's keeping an eye on which article, we have the front page of this mission page, which shows who's watching the articles. The progress report gives jbmurray's suggestion as to what's needed next. I suggest we use a similar checklist to see who can pay attention to which articles over the next week or two. By the way, I thought someone said that April 10 is the deadline for FAC nominations, but WP:MMM says that that's the deadline for the project, not just nominations. Jbmurray, can you clarify? If the final deadline is April 10 we are running out of time.

April 10 is the deadline for nominations. (I admit that at the outset of the project I was not 100% clear on the way in which FAC worked.) So it's the last day, for the purposes of the class at least, that students can put their article in for either FAC or GAN. NB I'm discouraging completely speculative nominations: articles should only go through if they're ready. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This list is by article. Can we try to get a single person's name listed under every one of these, with that person taking responsibility for helping to push the article to the next stage? I have added my name under the Sarmiento article, for example, and I see EyeSerene is working on Facundo, and others are at work on some of the other articles. I have also done work on Márquez and The President; I can take these on if nobody else has time, but I think The President has quite a bit of help -- not sure about Márquez. So please add your name if you can find time to take responsibility for one or more articles: in addition to detailed reviews, you can ask others to do GA reviews if you are too close to the article to do one yourself. I'd be willing to do another GA review, for example, though I am in the middle of a long copyedit on Sarmiento and also busy at work so it might be two or three days before I could do it. Anyway, here's the list. Mike Christie (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
  • Mike Christie (talk): detailed review for GA is now done. I'll watch the article and help the editors with any issues. May need assistance from jbmurray on political history.
  • I hope to get some research on this done today. (I have a slight problem that my colossal library fines prevent me from borrowing any books, but I'll do what I can...) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I did a bunch of research on political history last night, until the library closed; students have also been working hard on this topic, too. More needs to be done, but there's definite progress. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Miguel Ángel Asturias
  • Geometry guy: currently under GA review by Scartol (on hold until April 6); I'm helping with minor issues.
• Augusto Roa Bastos
  • Karanacs (talk); Right now this is waiting on the students to provide more information. I've left messages on both their talk pages. If anyo other FA member would like to take this one or help out, that would be appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a two-person group, one of whom has sadly been AWOL for most of the semester. Any encouragement that could be provided would be appreciated I'm sure, though as Karanacs notes, this article is still in the sourcing stage. NB I'll try to source where possible for this article and others (especially where English sources run out), but am feeling a little stretched at present. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Another little reminder about this, our lowliest article. It continues to be a one-person effort... I'm going to put some time in over the weekend, but encouragement from you guys would, I know, be appreciated. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Gabriel García Márquez
  • Geometry guy: I'm familiar with this one, and can help out, but it needs a real FAC guru like Mike or Awadewit
  • The editors are keen to take this to FAC. I somewhat fear that's over-ambitious given the importance of the author, and how much has been written on him; the article is good as it is, but one could imagine much expansion all the way through. I'm not sure how to deal with that exactly. So an FAC guru would be appreciated! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Awadewit (talk): I'll give this a thorough review.
    • I left a review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gabriel García Márquez/archive1. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mario Vargas Llosa
  • Karanacs (talk); I left a review on the talk page on the 28th and no response yet. I'll ping the students. Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • NB I think pinging the students is a great idea: they're tired of hearing from me! Perhaps others might consider doing likewise? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The students have been working up a storm recently; it might be worth popping in to see how they're doing. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Facundo
  • EyeSerene (talk): pre-GA copyedit underway; although the article is nominated at GAN it's still awaiting review.
  • Awadewit (talk): will do GA review
  • The review is done, for which many thanks to Awadewit; as she points out, copy-editing is important here. I've also added some notes on what should still be covered. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• El Señor Presidente
  • Awadewit (talk): pre-FAC copy editing underway; pre-FAC check underway;
    • This is very close to being ready for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now at WP:FAC!! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• I, the Supreme
  • Has been reviewed for GA, and they're working through the comments at some speed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• The General in His Labyrinth
  • I'll have a look at this. Yomangani^talk 07:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yomangani's done a detailed copyedit and a thorough peer review, so this is in the students' hands at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think Yomangani's actually gone through it yet. A lot of people have chipped away at it, however, and it's close. I'll help guide a student on an FAC, as it's the one I've looked at most closely. Marskell (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

    Tsk. I really must spread my edits out over hundreds of saves or they'll never get noticed. I've only given it a light copy-edit as I suggested some changes at PR. I'll give it another run though closer to FAC.Yomangani^talk 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Feast of the Goat
  • This has been another slow one, but again the editors are now keen. They're struggling a little because it's the most recent book on the list, and so has less scholarly analysis. But I think it's well on the way towards WP:GAN. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Skomorokh has put this on GA hold.
• Dictator novel
  • I've just put this into WP:GAN, so a review would be appreciated; it needs some work, but is fairly solid and the eidtors are keen. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • GA review imminent ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • GA review now complete; article on hold EyeSerene^talk 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Students have been zipping through EyeSerene's comments; it's worth checking back in. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Latin American Boom
  • Another one which has been practically a one-person effort, especially recently. Any comments or encouragement that could be offered would be most welcome. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC): GA review completed; on hold. Working on a copyedit.
  • The solitary worker on this continues tirelessly; encouragement is encouraged (!). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've heard back from the AWOL member of this group, who turns out to have been rather ill over the past couple of weeks; encouragement for the lonely remaining editor (who actually has a couple of health issues, too, but is doing remarkably well to overcome them) appreciated! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll run through and do a status on all of them this evening if I have time, and try to pick up one of the ones without an FA-team helper; the two I see that don't have anyone are The Feast of the Goat and Latin American Boom; plus at least one is waiting for a GA review. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be able to do the GA review on Latin American Boom this evening. That just leaves Feast of the Goat as the only one that doesn't have an FA-team member focused on helping out; if anyone can spare time for a look over there that would be great. Mike Christie (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Skomorokh has picked up the GA review of The Feast of the Goat, so every article has someone looking at it now. Mike Christie (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel García Márquez

Just a little plug for GGM... the editors here feel that they've been a little neglected by the FA-Team, the poor dears.  ;) So if someone could drop them a note, they'd very much appreciate it. They're certainly keen to take their article up to the next level. (Heh, and I think you might just have some new long-term wikipedians on your hands there...) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I owe the Sarmiento page a significant amount of work so I won't be able to do this for a couple of days at least. Mike Christie (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They are doing such a good job on their own, they probably have been a little overlooked. I'll try to drop by tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did just glance at my GA review notes and I believe a copyedit is in order; "choppy prose" was in my notes. Mike Christie (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll do one of my thorough reviews tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Karanacs has hit it on the head - they should feel complimented that they've been doing such a fine job that we haven't felt obliged to intervene ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awards

Might I suggest that we start awarding barnstars? Does anyone else remember getting their first one? :) Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Great idea, and I noticed you've already kicked things off ;) Do we award them as the FA-Team, or as individual editors (and thinking of that, maybe an FA-Team specific award might be nice), and are there criteria that should be applied in deciding on what goes to who? EyeSerene^talk 11:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We could do it individually or as a team - I don't know if it matters much. I just started giving them to people I saw working hard. I was hoping that editors working on other articles and familiar with the editors there could do the same (I've been working on The President (novel) a lot, so my vision is myopic at the moment). Awadewit (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I gave out a few to the editors on the pages I've been working most closely on (Vargos Llosa and Asturias). I think we ought to design a barnstar specifically from the FA-Team for the editors of any articles which reach FA status. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

English or Spanish titles

There's a discussion going on here about whether to move The President (novel) to El Señor Presidente; per jbmurray the Spanish title is what is used in the sources. I know from experience that this argument doesn't always succeed -- I saw a discussion about the Gaelic names of early Scottish kings: recent scholarly sources almost invariably use the Gaelic names but Wikipedia has opted for the more recognizable Anglicized names, such as Kenneth MacAlpin (instead of "Cináed mac Ailpín"). I don't see a clear answer per WP:ENGLISH, but I know I've been recommending to the students that they use English names for book titles where they exist. I'm not sure what the right answer is in general, though I feel confident that most readers would prefer One Hundred Years of Solitude to Cien Años de Soledad.

I'm worried the students will put a lot of effort into converting in one direction or another and will have to reverse that work at FAC. Is there a clear precedent for naming conventions for foreign language literature works? Mike Christie (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• One example is Le Père Goriot - this is not translated from the French and it is an FA. However, I'm not sure if there is an established precedent beyond individual articles. I don't know anyone who works systematically on foreign-language literature articles, although I heard a rumor that Scartol might be doing a featured topic on Balzac's novels (!). (Side note: Partially as a result of this problem, some of us established this endeavor.) Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• We also have Les Misérables which I've never seen with the title translated, while The Hunchback of Notre Dame is often (dare I say usually?) published with the French title nowadays. I think if the case can be made that it is traditionally or often known by the original title there is no reason to force it into English (the MoS is as helpful as ever on this). My point on The President was that the article title was different to the title used throughout the text - I don't have any preference as to which is used but they should match. Yomangani^talk 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• This came up earlier with The President (novel). As I read the criteria at the time, the title the majority of readers would use is the one we should go with, with the English version being preferable where it doesn't conflict with this. I would imagine a case can be made for either title though - this may be an instance of ignore all rules ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Yomangani: I agree on consistency; a related issue is that it would look odd in the Marquez article if we used (say) One Hundred Years of Solitude but Spanish names for other, less well-known titles. I could see a reader feeling that this was an inconsistent presentation. It might be better than forcing the use of rarely-seen translated titles in order to have consistency, though. I think it was Emerson who said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"; I'd like to be sure we only ask for sensible consistency. Mike Christie (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to ponder this one after I've had more coffee. On the one hand, we have ¿Por qué no te callas? because the phrase is best known and most used in Spanish (redirects from Shut up Chavez et al). Has any one looked at the WikiProject Film guidelines? They have fairly good guidelines and may have dealt with this. I'm not too worried about consistency on this one, and I think we can argue that if a work is published and widely known by its English name, it's OK to use the English name, but perhaps we can see how the Film Project has handled non-English language films. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Discouraging on the film front. We have not even a redirect at Como aqua para chocolate, but we do have Like Water for Chocolate. That's not right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy have you been hanging out with Italians? There is indeed a redirect from Como agua para chocolate.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh. Now that's the first time I was had by my years of living in Italy :-) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyhow, looking here for instance, there is much inconsistency: most but not all the Mexican films are listed under their Spanish titles. A decent analogy might be Amores Perros, which I think has been released in English-speaking countries both under its Spanish title and translated as "Love's a Bitch." But it's almost universally known as Amores Perros. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote at Talk:The President (novel): OK, I've looked at WP:ENGLISH, which says "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." As you can see from our References, other encyclopedias (such as Verity Smith's) use El Señor Presidente rather than The President. I suggest the page should be moved. I tried to be bold and move it, but I think we need an administrator's help.

As I say, I have the earlier edition of the translation, which is entitled El Señor Presidente. I can scan the cover. We can change the bibliographic reference because, as I remember, in fact even the page numbers are exactly the same. And we can just make a note in the first sentence that the book is also translated as The President. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that we should not diverge from how ALL of the scholarly, articles, and encyclopeida sources have referred to the book, which is El Senor Presidente. Only the most recent english translation has adopted the name "The President" but until then, the english translations retained the title El Senor Presidente. I see this novel as being much like the case of Le Père Goriot because if one was to search for infomation on this novel, they would likely search wikipedia for El Senor Presidente as that is the most common way that it is referred to in all scholarly material and even in english book reviews. It seems odd that we would take the title of just one version of its translation.--Mfreud (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say don't be in a hurry to move them yet, jb, because moving over redirects is a pain. Best to wait a day for consensus to gel, and then have an admin fix them all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be inclined to see how it goes at FA before upsetting the apple-cart. EyeSerene^talk 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally having been involved in so many bloody Wikipedia name wars, I say don't start one until your hand is forced. Spelling battles and nameing wars are the bane of Wikipedia. By the way, you don't need an admin to rename. Merging is the process where admins are sometimes needed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need tools to move back over a previous move and redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You do? Well, if so, there are a number of admins working on the MMM project.

• Geometry guy (talk · contribs · count) - admin
• Marskell (talk · contribs · count) - admin
• Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs · count) - admin

So, if help is needed it is available. But I wouldn't rush into renaming anything. As I've said, it is one of the sparks that causes the vortex of doom. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put up a suggested approach at Talk:The President (novel). Would it be true to say that the following should apply to all the titles in these articles?

• If the novel or short story is very well known in English (a somewhat subjective decision!) then use the English name. The only one I know of in this category is One Hundred Years of Solitude; there would be a couple of Borges' titles in this category too.
• Otherwise use the title in Spanish.
• Use the same name to refer to a novel as the title of the article about that novel. This may lead to inconsistencies in that some of a writer's works will be named in Spanish and some in English. The ones named in English should have the Spanish translation given when first mentioned.

If the above is OK, we only need to know which titles fall into the first category -- if any others do. Then we need to make all the articles conform to this; that's a fairly mechanical task and I don't think is a good use of the students' time. I'll volunteer to do that, if we agree it should be done. Mike Christie (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no guideline. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) - which isn't a guideline - does say:

Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article.

And

The native name should generally be included in the first line of the article, with a transliteration if the English name isn't one; redirects from non-English names are encouraged.

I think leaving things as they are and adding Spanish redirects if necessary can solve any problem. I'm too pessimistic but I can see the hordes objecting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, there are two issues it seems:

• First, article titles. Wikipedia convention is generally to use translated titles. In my professional role, I'd probably grumble about that (heh), but I'm happy enough. And all the articles do indeed go by their translated title. The hitch is with El Señor Presidente, which has also been translated as El Señor Presidente (as it happens right now I have that edition of the translation beside me as I type now), and is almost uniformally referred to as such even in English-language discussion.
• Second, book titles in general. Different pages are following slightly different conventions. I've been encouraging a policy that I think fits with Wikipedia's general ethos, and indeed to some extent with scholarly discussion as a whole: if the book is translated, use the translated title (with perhaps the original Spanish in parentheses at first mention or at other significant points). If the book is not translated, use the Spanish title (with the English translation in brackets, in quotation marks rather than italicized, at first mention). I went through Dictator novel, for instance, trying to establish that pattern. That works for me, and I think it works for wikipedia.

NB a) that relying of what people may be thought to know or not does seem a bit of a hit or miss affair. And b) that there are a few titles whose translations differ markedly from the original, such as The Time of the Hero or Explosion in a Cathedral. Special care should be taken with these. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like English is stronger than a guideline: it's policy.Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words

Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form.

In other words, it's ok that Shut up Chavez is in Spanish, because the phrase is only notable as a foreign phrase, and isn't widely recognized in English, but this policy argues for naming in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I love the instruction creep of Wikipedia. You are 100% correct SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). While Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_English_words is indeed policy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is not even a guideline. :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I think the outcome is that none of the pages move; The President (novel) stays where it is. Does anyone think that's wrong? I'll wait till tomorrow and update the suggested plan at Talk:The President (novel) if nobody complains. Mike Christie (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I complain! Or rather, I agree with Yomangani's comment that things can't stay as they are. At present the page is called one thing (The President), but we everywhere refer to the novel as another (El Señor Presidente). I can see why this is odd. So the option is either to change the name of the page; or to change the way in which we refer to the novel on the page. I vote for the former, and see also Mfreud's comment above. At the same time, we could delay the decision until after it's gone to FAC. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear a couple more opinions. The problem seems to be that we have a conflict between the naming convention, which says use English and would seem to unambiguously imply "The President" is the article name, and the reliable sources, which all or almost all use the Spanish title. I personally think it would be fine either way. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Mike Christie (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Title translations, while not making any useful statement on the matter, doesn't imply that the English translation should be used (ahh, the MoS, nothing if not consistent). If the English language studies (rather than the Spanish language studies) all call it El Señor Presidente and we only have a recent translation in which it is translated as The President, then it is probably safe to use El Señor Presidente as, in a strange way, it is the title the book is best known by in English. If it does stay at The President you might want to consider usurping the The President unless that is a particularly famous rock. Yomangani^talk 11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to throw another wrench into the MoS works, I don't know when, how or by whom that one page was turned into a policy page instead of a guideline. If someone has time, they might want to research that. It's easier to invoke IAR to a guideline at FAC than to strongly held policy positions, and I don't know how that page came to be policy. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another in this case, but if it's a strongly held policy issue, it wouldn't be good for the discussion to flare up in the middle of the FAC. Does anyone have time to dig back in to that page to research how it became policy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It became policy here on 12 May 2005 without so much as an edit summary by Radiant! during a mass page tagging exercise shortly after the policy templates had been created (with such classics as {{semipolicy}}) in simpler times. There doesn't seem to have been any discussion except after the fact. It's almost like anybody can edit these pages to support whatever argument they happen to be advancing. And none of the pages referred to agree anyway. Choose common sense. Yomangani^talk 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting: not surprising. Thanks Shark Guy :-) Allrighty then, common sense and IAR. Consistency within the article will matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think Yomangani's absolutely right about consistency, but perhaps it ought to be up to the MMM editors to decide whether to go with Spanish of English throughout? Although the guidelines would seem to support English over Spanish, I believe strong cases can be made for either position. Really it's trivial, and I'd hate to see an article we've worked so hard on get bogged down at the last hurdle. As long as suitable redirects are in place, readers will get to the article either way. EyeSerene^talk 12:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a small comment about actually doing the move: it requires an admin because there is an edit history at the target page, and nontrivial edit histories have to be preserved (e.g., for copyright reasons). However, in this case the edit history is entirely trivial, and the page move is as easy for any admin as a normal page move is for any editor. It would also be easy to move it back if we are inundated with complaints. Geometry guy 15:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion requested re 'Fair Use'

I've GA reviewed Dictator novel, and I'm a bit dubious about three non-free images (book covers) that are being used to illustrate one of the sections. They lack proper FUR's, but putting this aside for now, what I'm after is another opinion regarding their presence in the article. Can it be justified under 'Fair Use'? (I suspect not...) All advice gratefully received! EyeSerene^talk 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they can easily. They fit the same criteria in this article as they do for all the other articles they're in. Wrad (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Drop a note to Elcobbola (talk · contribs) to look at all the articles, since he'll most likely be looking at them at FAC, and he's good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that using three covers is too much given Wikipedias minimal non-free use goal. The President seems to be the one whose publication and impact is most thoroughly discussed. I'd add an FUR for that and cut the other two images. Geometry guy 15:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice. Per Sandy, I've asked Elcobbola's opinion too, & I think the upshot is that all three images will have to go. I agree that if any of them should stay, The President is the one, but I can't really make a case for even that under FUR, as it brings nothing to the understanding of the article (it is purely, as Elcobbola puts it, eyecandy). I do appreciate all the help! Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Bump my reminder above: check with Elcobbola pre-FAC ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Move Over Celine Dion!

As I mentioned to project members (aka the class) today, wikipedia's featured content today gives us new motivation to work on making these Featured Articles. Though I also mentioned that there wouldn't be too much difference: Ms Dion has been busy torturing people for quite some time, too.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Wow. Every time I hear that Titanic song... Wrad (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC reminder

Folks, please remember that all significant contributors should self-identify on FAC supports; per WP:FAC, "To support a nomination, write *Support, followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Article stats for El Señor Presidente:

Mfreud 259

Jbmurray 214

Katekonyk 83

Awadewit 70

EyeSerene 69

Wassupwestcoast 46

Eecono 43

Mike Christie 43

Kevinalewis 42

Michael Devore 25

Aille 21

Wrad 20

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated article status

The status section above was getting a bit cluttered, so here's a new one. I have tried to figure out the current situation for each one; please update if I got anything wrong. I've also tried to indicate a couple of places where FA-team members could help. If you would like someone from the FA team to drop in on one of the articles you're watching, please add a note here on what's needed. -- Mike Christie (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
  • Passed GA.
• Miguel Ángel Asturias
  • Geometry guy: currently under GA review by Scartol (on hold until April 6); I'm helping with minor issues.
  • This seems to have gone a bit quiet. I've left a note at Scartol's talk page asking how close it is.
  • Scartol left me a short status: some improvement but "Political career" still short and choppy; "Exile and rehabilitation" and "Family life" still need more depth.
• Augusto Roa Bastos
  • On GA hold (review by Cirt). Per Jbmurray, this article is understaffed and could probably do with some help.
  • Qp10qp has picked this up and is working on it; I'll ask him about a status when it looks like he's done, but it's good to see it's getting some attention. Mike Christie (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Gabriel García Márquez
  • Several peer reviews have been left at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gabriel García Márquez/archive1. We're waiting for the editors to react to or deal with those comments.
• Mario Vargas Llosa
  • A peer review is underway. The editors have been working hard on this; can someone spare the time to drop in and see what would be needed for a FAC nomination?
  • I think this could be the second article to go to FAC. So perhaps time for an MOS sweep? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Facundo
  • Awadewit has done a GA review; the editors have worked on it. It looks as if a copyedit would be helpful. I believe the editors are still working on this; Awadewit, I know you're busy so if you'd like someone else to stop by and see how the students are doing in dealing with your GA review comments, let us know.
    • If the editors could post little updates in the review itself, it would help me enormously. I would rather wait to reread the article until everything has been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Copyediting is still underway; I'm currently making a second pass. I'll let Awadewit know when this is done ;) EyeSerene^talk 01:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Now failed GA.
• El Señor Presidente
  • Now at WP:FAC, and garnering support outside the FA team. Looking very good so far. The editors should plan on finding some comfortable laurels to rest on when it is promoted to FA.
• I, the Supreme
  • Has been reviewed for GA by Acer. Looks like they're getting pretty close to GA, judging by the struck out comments; Acer, how close is this?
    • This has been a one person effort for sometime now, but he managed to deal with most of the issues I raised pretty fast, the only things left as far as I'm concerned for GA are a couple of missing pagenumbers, one citation needed tag that needs to be dealt with and two sentences that need rewording, so to sum it up it's pretty close. Acer (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• The General in His Labyrinth
  • Yomangani's done a peer review. The editors are working on it; Yomangani, are they making progress?
    • A little work has been done on addressing the points raised by The Rambling Man in the peer review, but most of the recent activity has been reverting the daily "updates" from 146.163.42.22 (talk · contribs) and 24.182.239.124 (talk · contribs). Yomangani^talk 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You may want to ping User:Eshiu, User:Carlaty, and User:Paulleblanc directly. On the other hand, some editors may have decided that they are happy to stick with GA rather than go for FA. I agree that this could move up a step, but if the editors are happy to leave things be, then perhaps so be it. I dunno. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• The Feast of the Goat
  • Skomorokh has put this on GA hold. There hasn't been much activity on this since the review a few days ago. I think most of the work needed is on the students' side, but a copyedit for encyclopaedic tone would probably be helpful, per the GA review, if anyone on the FA-team can spare the time.
• Dictator novel
  • EyeSerene has done a GA review and the article is on hold. It looks like the students are working on it and EyeSerene is working with them on the talk page.
• Latin American Boom
  • GA review done by Mike Christie; this is quite close to GA.

I should say in general that clearly it's not the FA-Team's job to fill in for students when things have gone quiet. It may be that not all of these articles become GA. Strictly speaking, for instance, I suspect Miguel Ángel Asturias should be failed by now. Perhaps it should be failed: does that give the students time to try to get a reassessment before April 10?

I would rather we focus our efforts on those areas where there is a lot of student input at the moment. I've pointed to the understaffed groups where single individuals are labouring away (Latin American Boom, Augusto Roa Bastos, and Acer adds I, the Supreme). There's also a lot of movement at Facundo and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento. It might also be good to attend to those post-GA articles that could have a shot at FA: in my judgement these are Mario Vargas Llosa and perhaps Gabriel García Márquez. But it'd be good to hear what you guys (and guyesses) feel. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think The General in His Labyrinth would have a pretty good shot with a little polishing (though I'm worried by the removal of the section on symbology - the source may not have been up to snuff, but I couldn't see a gaping hole in the conclusions, and the deletion leaves it less than comprehensive). Yomangani^talk 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We are definitely still wanting to get FA status (at least Carlaty and I)! Sorry, I know we've been making very small changes, but we've (again, Carlaty and I) both have two other huge group projects due on Thursday, so that's where our focus has been. However, we do hope to at least get FA nomination by Thursday, and then we'll be back at it! I do still have the section on symbology saved on my computer if there is consensus that it should be left on the page. Eshiu (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A status overview: at least three that I know of are very close to GA status: I, the Supreme, Dictator novel, and Latin American Boom. Qp10qp is helping out on Augusto Roa Bastos but tells me there's a little more to do. If all those four pass, that would be eight at GA and probably one (or perhaps two) at FA, which would be a very impressive outcome. The remaining three are Facundo, Miguel Ángel Asturias, and The Feast of the Goat; since the deadline of April 10 is for nominations rather than for final status I think these can still make GA if the students have time to work on them. Mike Christie (talk) 10:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jumping through hoops

I think we are making the poor MMM people jump through hoops for GA. The GA standard - as it is usually practiced - is quite a bit lower. I think all of the GA nom articles ought to be classed as GA now. For example, this article Moonrise (Warriors) just passed GA a little while ago. Far from fantastic but it is typical of what does squeak through GA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, that really shouldn't have passed, should it? In fact, had I time and inclination, I'd put it up for reassessment immediately! I don't think there's any reason to drop standards for MMM. And I don't think it's jumping hoops: it's asking editors to raise the article to a standard, even if there are times when in practice (as with Moonrise (Warriors)) that standard is a little wobbly. Moreover, it's not even necessary: these articles are indeed close to GA standard even if they haven't got there yet.

Incidentally, I do sometimes wonder if I should have mentioned that students' grades were linked (partially) to achieving these milestones. There are pitfalls to transparency... But such things are for the post-mortem. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Moonrise (Warriors) is far from unique! By the way, I wasn't thinking about your student's grades :-) I was just thinking in terms of fairness. GA must 'satisfactorily' meet the GA criteria. The sourcing doesn't need to be a high standard, for example. As long as there are sources and the article isn't just a plot summary or completely in-universe, it would meet the GA criteria. In terms of grades, I think GA would be a C-grade: i.e. project is completed 'satisfactorily. To quote the Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "A good article is a satisfactory article ... decent articles." I don't want to see all these new Wikipedians chased away because they've met a cabal of perfectionists. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, as a former student who was all for clarity in grading systems, I'd have to agree that you should have mentioned that. I'd meekly suggest you focus more on the intrinsic accomplishment of any article than on what Wikipedia grade it attains, because the grading system here is not particularly consistent, internally valid, or applied by individuals with knowledge of a subject. You, on the other hand, have qualifications— please don't subordinate them to our "drive-by taggers" who call articles "start"s or "B"s or even "GA"s. Having your students do some work that won't be filed away and shredded is awesome, but the judgments of that work, IMO, should be entirely in your hands, with perhaps a bonus for Featured Article. (Also keep in mind that work that would be highly valued in the classroom—A Tale of a Tub, maybe—easily becomes undervalued on Wikipedia. :) –Outriggr § 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Outriggr, there's certainly no lack of clarity. Regarding the other things you say, I think there's room for discussion. You can see some of my thoughts here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It's obvious you've considered this very thoroughly. I'm not suggesting there is no merit in getting a "good grade" on wikipedia—far from it. (But I do strongly disagree with the "let the world decide" approach to grading, in a general philosophical way.) –Outriggr § 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that an individual professor is less arbitrary than Wikipedia's grading system. I would also encourage Jbmurray to re-evaluate his choice of letting Wikipedia grade the students. GAC is not letting the "world" grade someone - it is letting one person do so and some reviewers are much more stringent than others (myself, for example). The FAC process for El Señor Presidente has, so far, drawn very little evaluation. For the sake of the editors, I'm glad, but if FA=A+, I'm concerned. What if other articles go through the same intense preparation and are of the same quality, but just don't get nominated in time? What is the distinction? Finally, this assignment falls prey to the dreaded group assignment problems - why should everyone in the group get the same grade, if only one person does all of the work? Wikis make it easy to demonstrate what work has been done by whom. Might that be considered? Establishing grading rubrics in the humanities is extremely difficult and I don't envy Jbmurray having to design one for this assignment - I am currently struggling to design one myself for a wiki-based, collaborative essay my students are working on. Awadewit (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. There are a lot of issues here, both practical and philosophical, and while I'm happy to discuss them, I'm not so sure this is the right place to do it. However, quickly: first, I should make it clear that the wikipedia assignment is but one assignment for the class, and so does not solely determine the final grade; second, for me, the main issue has in practice turned out to the one about group assignments, but this is not a wikipedia problem although perhaps wikipedia make the problem more obvious (for various reasons, including as Awadewit points the fact that it is remarkably easy to see who has contributed what); wikipedia is not grading the students, but (for this assignment) the students are being graded according to whether or not they achieve a set of criteria established on wikipedia. Again, there are other issues, many of which go to the very heart of what we do when we grade. But if you wanted a comparison, one could imagine (say) a science assignment in which the task was to construct a machine that achieved a certain real-world goal; or a journalism assignment in which the task was to get an article published in a local newspaper. And of course in practice (in this course as in others) there are differing considerations, which are often reflected in differing parts of the overall assessment. And I should say that so far I am not unhappy with the process. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Down pens?

Given Talk:Gabriel_García_Márquez#Possible_FAC_nomination this discussion, I wonder if the FA-Team could opine as to whether any of the current Good Articles (and if so, which ones) have, at this stage, the potential to go to FAC before Thursday? If not, it seems only fair to inform those students, so they don't have their hopes unduly raised. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything not already a GA is unlikely to be a plausible FA candidate by Thursday. The only other two GAs are Mario Vargas Llosa and The General in His Labyrinth. Yomangani, above, indicates that TGIHL is close to ready to nominate. Any opinions on MVL? Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think MVL suffers from the same problem as GGM - it needs to choose one way to discuss the author's works: by work, by genre, or by style. There is repetition in the current choice. Since there are so many works, I would suggest either by genre or by style for this author. This kind of revision is difficult and time-consuming, as it involves the rewriting of entire sections, so I would say that MVL shouldn't be put up for FAC. Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on MVL. I think it does need some work (I'd move everything in the section Other Works the the Biography), but I liked having the style section and then the explanation of his major works. Although I am not an expert on literature articles, as an FA reviewer I'd support the article with a few changes. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The "Style" section is too vague for me at the moment. However, if it integrated a discussion of the actual texts, it would be much more precise and the claims would be much clearer. I cannot stress enough how difficult it is to write a "Style" section. Simmaren and I have been struggling for months over the Style section for the Jane Austen article (see our current mess - it will become its own article eventually) and she only wrote six complete novels. The problem is, most writers don't actually have one style. You can see this reflected in the MVL "Style" section - to properly explain the multiple styles takes space. Awadewit (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If the students on this article have the time to do two or three passes between now and Thursday evening, do you think it's worth a shot? We don't want them to waste their time on a wild-goose chase, but it would be great to get two or three FAs out of the project instead of just one. Mike Christie (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think section reorganization is something that takes quite a bit of time. If they had nothing else to do between now and then (as you said before), perhaps this would work, but usually people have other things to do. Most people are not wikiholics like ourselves. :) We should also be aware that the students have other assignments for other classes as well as for this class. Please remember that, for the students, the distinction between FA and GA is slight - GA earns them an "A" and FA earns them an "A+" on this assignment. We happen to know that the distinction between those two categories on Wikipedia is enormous, in rigor and prestige, but they may not see it that way yet. :) Finally, I usually like to encourage people to nominate articles for FAC only after they have been carefully organized, copy edited, researched, etc.. I have found that these careful (and time-consuming) steps produce wonderful articles that fly right through the FAC process. If we hold ourselves to the highest standards, hopefully others will take notice and those high standards will spread (the idealist in me). Getting off of soap box now. Awadewit (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of unfair to the students, since articles that aren't reviewed by the quality of people on this team go through FAC all the time with a much much lower standard of writing, organization and research than Awadewit watches for in literature articles. Just an observation (not that I want the standards lowered, but our literature standards are significantly higher than articles that get Support in numerous other categories). The problem is that any one of those articles, if they happened to be about a video game or a musician, would likely make it through FAC because the members of this team, and the most stringent FA reviewers, don't usually review those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I review other types of articles and impose my high standards on them, too! :) Despite the fact that the FA-Team in general has higher standards than other FA reviewers (and myself, perhaps, in particular), I still think that we should demand the highest standards of ourselves. Just because an article could pass by being poorly organized doesn't mean we should perpetuate that problem. One way Wikipedia can gain legitimacy in the world is by having high-quality articles. We do not help ourselves by labeling something the "best of Wikipedia" that could so obviously be improved. I'm not really sure there is a "fair" solution to any of this, anyway - I know what you think of the GAC process! Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, no "fair" way to solve this. But I least I got in a plug to get all of you to review other articles more often <evil grin> ... as to the GAC process, I look at who passed the article, and judge from there. An Awadewit pass actually *means* something; unfortunately, there are dozens of non-Awadewit passes for every Awadewit pass :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, I've built up "reputation capital". Someday, I'll have to spend it. How best to do that.... :) Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think any of the other articles could have a shot? Some of the ones that haven't reached GA are only being hold back by minor issues. Acer (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Who is the "you"? The whole team? Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Err. no I meant you, Awadewit, Sandy placed her commnent between my post and yours so the reference was lost.. Acer (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, I haven't read all of twelve of the articles. I'm re-reviewing Facundo for GA later today/tomorrow and I'll leave any FA thoughts I have when I do that review - that's what I usually do. Unfortunately, I don't have time to carefully read the entire batch of articles. (I have to put together a huge teaching portfolio this week about why I would be a great teacher of literature classes. :) I think it might say something about "high standards"....) However, I will read any articles that other editors think are ready for FAC and offer my opinion, if they so desire. Awadewit (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok then, I thought you had read them all. Best of luck on the portfolio :) Acer (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Friday

JbMurray, could you let the students know that we won't abandon them completely on Friday? If any of them are still interested in getting the article to FA for its own sake (and not that of their grade), we'll still be happy to help. Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. The articles will still be here, and so will we... ;) EyeSerene^talk 17:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've started a new subsection on this thread, because it is an important one for the team and the mission. The FA-Team is here to help new editors create FAs for two main reasons: more FAs; more editors with FA experience (hmmm, that could be misread :). "Help students get a good grade" doesn't get a mention in the team goals :) and shouldn't be a determining factor in our actions. Mission 1 does not end on Thursday: for one thing, any articles still at FAC need FA-Team support.

Karanac's comment and EyeSerene's support suggest to me a little more than that. I think that on each article we are helping with, FA-Team support should continue until either the article gets featured, or the article loses momentum and FA-Team support is no longer helpful, for instance because the content experts have moved on to other things. What do others think? Geometry guy 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Geometry guy - that is why I think we should not really consider the April 10th deadline and its effects on grades (which are slight, anyway) in our decisions about FAC nomination. We should consider the merits of the articles. I would hope that the editors would continue to work on the articles after April 10 and if they desire our help to get the articles to FA status, I am more than willing to offer it. Awadewit (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It does one good to laugh, apparently, but thanks to your post Gguy, I almost just inhaled half a cup of coffee. Still, it's cleared my sinuses ;) You've got my full commitment anyway - as Awadewit says, if some of the MMM editors remain with us (and I hope they do), we should finish the job. EyeSerene^talk 19:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to help with nasal problems! Re Awadewit's comment, I largely agree of course, but I think we should take account of the deadline from the point of view of editor motivation. I would hope that the FAC process would be tolerant of an article which is not quite "there" being nominated by an enthusiastic and dedicated bunch of editors. The point is that we might get another featured article thanks to the comments at FAC being implemented by the dedicated editors. So, I think we can both take advantage of this window, and encourage contribution beyond it. (Bottom line: improving the encyclopedia trumps all other considerations.) Geometry guy 19:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To consider the worst case (from our perspective), it's possible, though I hope unlikely, that once the deadline has expired we could be left with a handful of 'unfinished' articles and no real way to take them forward. Certainly adding sourced content would be difficult. However, I agree that should such a situation arise, we should do the best we can for those articles still under assessment. I'd be slightly more dubious about articles that aren't actively part of a review process - I fear we might find ourselves biting off more than we can chew - but I suppose that would also depend on the article. EyeSerene^talk 20:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That was my main fear, that the students would lose interest or assume we would on Friday. If they are still ready to work, so are we :) Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to agree with all the above -- we're here to get "teach people to fish" first of all; grades are no doubt a motivator, and I'm happy to work a bit harder as the deadline approaches to help students who are also working hard. The FAs we get out of the process are a pleasant bonus. If even one of these students becomes a regular contributor to Wikipedia, this mission has been an oustanding success; even if none of them do we have some great articles and the encyclopedia is better off. Plus the FA team has learned a lot from this experience.

Ideally, we don't just teach people to fish; we teach them to teach people to fish. It would be outstanding if any of the students were not only interested in sticking around, but eventually joined the FA team. Mike Christie (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey y'all, I think somehow I missed this mini-thread of a few days ago... Anyhow, in short, of course. I will explicitly tell students that the FA-Team is still right there for them.  :) I should point out, however, that I doubt they will get stuck back into editing immediately, as the end of classes means the beginning of exam period. (They don't have an exam for this class, but they will have for others.) I do think it's likely, however, that some will return afterwards. You guys are the best advert for Wikipedia I have seen! (Heh, Wrad, you can put that on the FA-Team main page if you want...) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How close is Mario Vargas Llosa to FAC?

Well first of all thanks to Karanacs (as well as everyone else) for the continued input towards improving this article. On behalf of our group, this article has somewhat become our baby and we would love to be able to meet the FAN April 10th deadline. We've tackled many of the issues that SandyGeorgia, Kaldari, Karanacs, Outrigger and Acer have brought up. We would definitely appreciate more feedback and input on both how close we are to FAC and what we can do to achieve that. Also, the 3 of us are completely lost when is comes to MoS issues, so any help on that would be greatly appreciated as well. I pretty much have this week off and will be putting an immense amount of work into this article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 (talk · contribs) is usually very prompt about MoS edits; if you drop him a note, I'm sure he'll run through quickly. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do this: Patricia Llosa (1965–) I think it's supposed to say (born 1965), but that's something to check with WP:MOS. The most important thing is to deal with the citation needed tag; otherwise, the issues I raised on PR were addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The date is when they were married, not her birth. Still, I'm not sure if that's right, but that's what I gathered from the WP:MOSNUM, "In the main text of articles, the form 1996– (with no date after the en-dash) should not be used, though it is preferred in infoboxes and other crowded templates or lists, with the caveat that they may need to be examined by editors more frequently to see if they need to be updated". Maybe (married 1965)? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't that much MOS stuff left. I've fixed everything I've seen as I reviewed. Karanacs (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already promised to review the article tomorrow - I will attempt to do it in the early afternoon, before I teach. Awadewit (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, G guy said above, "I would hope that the FAC process would be tolerant of an article which is not quite 'there' being nominated by an enthusiastic and dedicated bunch of editors." Far less prepared articles have appeared at FAC, and gotten featured in the course of the FAC. It's a harder way to do it, but not undoable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, I hoped you would comment on that! Articles can be fixed during FAC, but it isn't easy, so those groups that want to do it need to have a well-prepared article already, sources to hand, and a love of hard work :-) FA-Team members are ready and willing to help in any way they can! Geometry guy 21:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant to comment sooner. But, my watchlist and talk page are getting harder and harder to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the two articles I reviewed has just passed GA (congratulations to Cndbaconeh, Lpotto, and Rosefinn) and the other should pass shortly, so I have some spare bandwidth to help at Mario Vargas Llosa. If Lincolnchan98 is willing to put the work in, I think it would be fun to see how close we can get. After all, it doesn't have to be nominated till the evening of April 10th. Awadewit's comments about how difficult this will be should be taken seriously, but we have dedicated content editors and the FA team know what they're doing. I say let's give it a shot. Mike Christie (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

For what is worth I'll jump in on this one too. Tommaso also said he wants to try and go for it see here - Acer (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am following the discussions on this page, but not intervening because I want to see how they go. I'll say, however, 1) that I am meeting with the class for what will be our last session tomorrow, and so can do some debrief and report on this conversation for those who are not watching this page; 2) the MVLL group includes some of the project's most dedicated workers especially (in terms of edit count) in Lincolnchan98; 3) I would not favour lowering standards, even (especially?) the high standards of Literature FA articles; 4) I'm certainly prepared to be flexible with regard to the April 10 deadline if needs be and if it would prove unfair not to be.

I am on the other hand aware that many of the students have put in an awful amount of time already, and that they do have other assignments and commitments apart from this course. I would not like to mislead them about what can be achieved or what it would take to achieve it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In return I'd say that the students need to make their own commitment; we're here to help if they want to do it, but there should be no pressure. We're here because it's our hobby: we don't mind if they're here because they want to improve the grade, or because they're in danger of becoming addicted just like us; and if they have no more spare time then that's fine -- we hope they enjoyed the work we did together. But if they really do want to keep going, we'll be very glad to work with them. Mike Christie (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now reviewed Mario Vargas Llosa and left some suggestions for improvement here. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism alert

I have removed an entire section of the Facundo article because it was plagiarized and failed it for GA. Someone will eventually need to check the entire article for plagiarism. I do not have the time to do that right now - I am overwhelmed with my own work. This is a note to remind us that this must be done in the coming weeks. Awadewit (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ufff. I've left a note about the "Synopsis" section.  :( --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick update. I've talked to the group working on Facundo. They are, understandably, a little shellshocked. I've tried to explain to them a) the seriousness of the issue b) that they should not feel personally castigated and c) how to avoid plagiarism, or even the suspicion of plagiarism, in the future. I've also told them that in a few days I will come and monitor again what they are doing. (Unfortunately, I cannot do this directly and in an ongoing manner as they are the ones that have the books. Finally, I also told them that this is a good opportunity to learn what is a very important lesson that is very much at issue also in the rest of their college careers.

Though they find (in their own words) their confidence rather shot, they are also keen to get back on track.

So I'd like very much to thank Awadewit for identifying the problem and bringing it to our attention. I am actively monitoring the situation, and I encourage others to do so to the extent that they are able, while also providing as far as possible a supportive and encouraging environment for the group to move forwards working hard to rebuild.

In practice this may mean that they quote far too much in the near future. This is what I recommended to them in the first instance. Which could be a good opportunity for us to model what is legitimate (as opposed to illegitimate) paraphrase.

I should also note that for at least two of the group, English is not their first language, and I feel that this is not an irrelevant factor. So we (I) may have to be prepared to help out more on grammar, spelling, and so on.

Anyhow, that is the situation at present. I thought you should be aware. Your input is also welcome. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

FA team supports

I wonder whether there are side effects when the FA team adds a half-dozen supports at a FAC for an article in a mission we've been working on. On the one hand, I think all of us who put in a support are doing so because we've read the article and honestly believe it is worthy of promotion. There's no misrepresentation going on. However, what does that look like to others who aren't on the team? There have been negative comments at FAC in the past about Wikiprojects piling support !votes on. Sandy certainly knows how to ignore them when they aren't substantive, but I wonder if there's a better way. For example, what if the first FA team member to support puts in a support !vote that says something like: "Support. This is a great article. It is one of the FA team articles from mission 42." and then other FA team members who support can add "Agreed; support as a member of the FA team" indented after that paragraph (and without bolding, as Sandy searches for bolded !votes to help her keep track). Or is that bending over too far backwards to avoid falling flat on our faces? Mike Christie (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should disclose as normal. Support <blah blah>. Disclosure: I did a peer review. etc etc. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about precedent for future noms and setting a good example, it would be helpful if you all added soemthing. If you're worried about these noms, no problem; I know who worked on them and I'm watching for contributor as well as independent support, just as I do on all noms, whether they disclose or not :-) I'm more worried that the students have a perspective; that rarely do noms get the level of support they're getting, so jbmurray might convey that info to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Today I had a chat with the groups that are still hoping to go for FAC. I'll try and say more later (in a minute I have to go to another class), but in brief I told them both that it would be a lot of work, and that the FAC process would certainly not be as plain sailing as it has been (relatively) so far for El Señor Presidente. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but I should also point out (should it not be clear!) that I'm as much of a newbie at FAC as any of them are. Though I am trying to get involved a little now to figure out more or less how it works. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We're always desparate for reviewers, jbmurray, and we are very very happy to see you at FAC! Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick Update

Just quickly, as I'm on the run to another meeting...

As I said above, I saw the project members (aka the class) again today. It was in a fairly informal location, and this was our last meeting of the semester. Games were played: Dictator novel charades; elect your dictator, for which I can report the people voted for The President. Refreshments were supplied.

Anyhow, I also checked in with the various groups about whether or not they wanted to go for FAC. They have been following this page, and are aware of the warnings about what's involved. Moreover, I stressed that I was putting no pressure on them. And I told them to think about it over the course of the day. But it does look as though both Team Mario Vargas Llosa and Team Gabriel García Márquez want to give it a go for the gold star. Not everyone from Team The General in His Labyrinth was present, so I'm not sure about them. They would be the only ones to go for FAC.

I also said that I would be happy to stretch the deadline slightly: to Sunday night, i.e. the end of April 12. They are aware that this is not a final deadline, of course, because even if they can make a nomination by then, there will still be work to do over subsequent days.

And as I've said above, I also spoke to Team Facundo. In the same spirit, I also said I'd be prepared to stretch their deadline similarly to Sunday night if they want to renominate for WP:GAN. And I will go over their sources with care either Friday or (more likely) Monday. (And this, incidentally, regardless of whether or not they are able to achieve renomination.)

OK, now to my meeting. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this comment, and I can't speak for the rest of my group, but I want to keep working on the dictator novel after the deadline. My only problem is with exams coming up, I really shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a computer. My addiction to wikipedia is kind of a problem...As of April 25th, I want to try to get this article up to FA status. I haven't really been following the FA process that The President has been going through so I'd definitely appreciate any help. I think I might be addicted to Wiki for life.>_<--Abarratt (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's do it! I'll also be slowing down on wikipedia once the big MMM push is over: I have other stuff to be doing. But we can work on the article a little more slowly. And perhaps it can be the residual article that the FA-Team might look upon fondly too from time to time?  ;) It is the article that brings all the others together, so in some ways the linchpin. (The anchor of a featured topic???) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's great to hear from editors like Abarratt that they're becoming addicted! That's our goal: we want to convert people from casual, occasional editors to editors who know how to take an article to FA, and there will definitely be support from the FA team for anyone who wants to take one of these twelve articles to featured level. We all have other obligations too, so without the pressure of a deadline things are likely to slow down a bit, but I'm sure we can help the students reach FA on the articles they want to work on. Mike Christie (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Carlaty and I, from Team The General in His Labyrinth, are extremely upset that we missed the dictator novel charades at yesterday's gathering! But on a more serious note, we are still trying to go for FA. If we can get it up for nomination at least by the deadline, we will right back at it on Friday and continue making improvements until FA status is confirmed. Eshiu (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, excellent! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest checking in with Yomangani, either at his talk page or at the TGIHL talk page; he's been following that article closely and is very experienced at FAC, and should be able to advise. Mike Christie (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

El Señor Presidente FA

Congratulations everyone, El Señor Presidente is now officially a FA and whatsmore its going to the main page, Raul is even going to let Mfreud choose the date :) Acer (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Very cool. El Señor Presidente meet Ima Hogg :-) So what is the next article up for FAC. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa! We definitely want to follow in El Señor Presidente's footsteps. See here. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations from me too! I think it would be great to have a biography FA as well as a novel and this one is nearly ready. Geometry guy 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for help on Mario Vargas Llosa

The editors here are putting in the work and Awadewit has left a series of suggestions on the talk page but the article could do with some extra pair of eyes for copyedit and whatnot. Also before you jump in please read the last two sections of the talk page, ie: Awadewits comments and regarding the restructuring the article is undergoing. The Major works section in particular, has been taken out while we try to integrate its contents into the other sctions.. any help is welcome Acer (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

April 10 article status

I thought it was time for another status, and with luck this will help editors on the FA team figure out where they can be useful to the MMM editors. Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The following articles are probably now static -- the ones at GA are (as far as I know) not likely to be pushed to FA, and there's also the one FA, of course:

• Augusto Roa Bastos -- now GA, not going to FA
• Dictator novel -- now GA; the editors have indicated that they want to go ahead and get to FA, but they won't be nominating by the Sunday deadline for their class, so this can be treated as low priority for FA team support for a while.
• Domingo Faustino Sarmiento -- now GA, not going to FA
• El Señor Presidente -- now an FA
• Latin American Boom -- now GA, not going to FA
• Miguel Ángel Asturias -- failed GA; out of time for renomination

Here's a status on the others. Note the deadline for an FA nom is now Sunday 13th; the deadline for a second GA nom for Facundo is also Sunday.

• Miguel Ángel Asturias
  • Currently under GA review by Scartol; the deadline has expired without a great deal of work happening in the last few days. If the students are interested in getting this past GA I am sure the FA team are willing to help, but at the moment there is not much activity.
  • I see Mfreud has now stepped in!! But if there's not much activity from the students (and this article has been on hold for a very long time now; though one of the students did have real-world hassles of some kind), then there's no reason for activity from the FA-Team. And if it fails the GA Reviews as a result, then so be it. On the brighter side, I did see this group two days ago, and they indicated that they would in fact be back on the case. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Another nudge has gone in to the editors. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just failed GA Review. I'm sad that we won't get the clean sweep of GAs, but there we go... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Augusto Roa Bastos
  • On GA hold (review by Cirt). Qp10qp has done his usual fine job on this, and Cirt came back with a shortened list of points to address. Nathanlusignan is working on it and I think this article is in good hands and will get through GA between the two of them.
    • Qp10qp has asked Cirt to take another look so we may have a promotion shortly. Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Cirt has just passed this as a GA. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Gabriel García Márquez
  • Already GA; the editors have expressed an interest in making this an FA. A peer review is in progress and has had input from Kaldari and Awadewit. I see from the article history that Arantxa.rap has done a lot of work recently, but I don't know if anyone from the FA team is working with her. If anyone can spare the time to check on the article talk page and help with an FA push that would be great.
  • Apparently two of the editors have time over this weekend; the third will be able to play her part starting on Monday. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not much activity recently; unless something happens later this afternoon or this evening, I fear it ain't going to go up for FA. But got a nice mention from a Colombian academic friend of mine here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Mario Vargas Llosa
  • Already GA. As with GGM the editors want to try for FA. A peer review is underway; SandyGeorgia and Kaldari have commented. All three MMM team editors have been working on the article, and Acer is helping out. (Acer, how come you're not signed up at WP:FAT? You're doing great work here!) Per Acer's comment above, a copyedit would be very useful at this point.
  • Great work continues on Mario Vargas Llosa. The structure has had a complete overhaul, audaciously but confidently achived by Lincolnchan98. I think this can be put in for FAC tomorrow, though there will still be work to do. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Frenetic activity has been going on at Mario Vargas Llosa; Lincolnchan98 needs to get some sleep! But this will definitely go up for FAC later today. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Facundo
  • Since the GA fail the editors have been working hard and put in a lot of material. I did a copyedit last night and EyeSerene has been working on the article too. I am sure they're going to be ready for a GA nom by Sunday, if not before. I think between EyeSerene and me this one has FA team coverage.
  • I just saw this group, and spent some time with the article and the sources. I found no evidence of continued plagiarism. (I did find other sourcing problems, which I have indicated on the talk page, and which I went through with them.) As I was not able to go through every reference or every source, I cannot certify that the article is 100% free of plagiarism. But the sources have now been put under more scrutiny than any other article. The students are still rather nervous, but I think that this has been a useful experience for them. Awadewit suggested someone uninvolved with the article review the sources before it goes again for GA nomination.
    • For myself, I feel that if you are comfortable with the sources, I would not see a need to push further on that. You know that sources better than anyone else involved here. Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have done a copyedit pass. The next step is for someone to go through and look at the overall article structure, and consider it in the light of GA criteria to see what else needs to be done; some of the earlier comments on the talk page would be useful references for this: Awadewit's GA review, for example. EyeSerene also left a note about repetition of material that I'm not going to be able to respond to this evening; can anyone else take a look? Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• I, the Supreme
  • On GA hold; Acer did the review. This article is teetering on the brink of GA. Acer and I have left a note for the main editor, Michaeltufaro; it would be a pity if it doesn't make GA. I don't think it needs FA team attention.
  • I've nudged the editors again. But if it fails, it fails. It would indeed be a pity, however. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Still no action here, which is a bit agonizing. Don't want to let it drag on too much, either. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• The General in His Labyrinth
  • At GA, and the editors want to take it to FA. I believe Yomangani has this in hand; Yomangani, would it be useful for anyone else to look in?
    • Of course. I'm trying to keep the copy-editing light until they've "finished" and I wouldn't want to inundate them with suggestions for improvements, but a second (third, fourth...) opinion on the structure and content would be beneficial. Yomangani^talk 23:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Outriggr and qp10qp are now both working on this; that's quite a team so I'm going to move this to near the bottom of the "help needed" list, below.
  • A lot of activity on this. Will definitely go up to FAC later today. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• The Feast of the Goat
  • Skomorokh has put this on GA hold. I plan to do a copyedit tonight. I will post an update later this evening if I can after I've made a pass.
    • Update: I've copyedited this and have asked Skomorokh for a few days extension on the GA hold (which would expire tonight). If he grants the extension I think the editors can get this over the line though it does need work still. Mike Christie (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Skomorokh granted the extension, and has just been pinged for a re-review; I hope this is now close to GA. Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm about to take a look at this, but yes, I suspect it's done. Won't be going for FA. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please update or correct the above statuses as appropriate. If you're looking for something to do, I'd suggest that the top places to go are Mario Vargas Llosa, Gabriel García Márquez, and possibly The Feast of the Goat. Mike Christie (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated suggested tasks (I'm updating these in place rather than adding new versions at the end):

• Mario Vargas Llosa -- what's needed for FA?

• I just reviewed this article here and the students are working redrafting the article. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have created an FAC checklist here which we are going through. I have copy edited the article and left a list of comments on the article's talk page. I will try to shepherd the article and its editors through FAC in the next few days. However, if other people could weigh in on the fair use rationales, I would appreciate it. If other free images could be found, that would be wonderful. More copy editing eyes are always welcome. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Gabriel García Márquez -- what's needed for FA?
• Facundo -- look for repetition in material; do a pre-GA review

• Repetition now (hopefully) addressed; I've reorganised the layout and rationalised the content. Still needs further copyediting though. EyeSerene^talk 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have renominated, making clear that the article previously failed for issues with sources, and suggesting no more than the standard 7-day period on hold. The article still needs work, but there has been a lot of effort put into it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The General in His Labyrinth -- assist Yomangani, qp10qp and Outriggr in pre-FA review
• Miguel Ángel Asturias -- if the students do return to the article, they are likely to need copyediting and MoS help; at this point I think we wait and see what's needed
• The Feast of the Goat -- Waiting for GA reviewer to take another look; no FA team input needed for the moment

-- Mike Christie (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You know what?

If we were to get three more feature articles, I think I might just retire. The only way onward would be down.  :) At least it would make Greogry Kohs happy.

(Wow, and I've just seen that Mfreud has intervened on Larry Sanger's blog!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

From that link, I think you'd all be best just shutting up shop at UBC and heading home. You're clearly finished as an academic institution. And Mfreud, you've done all of us proud, both on and off wiki (especially, I suspect, jbmurray!) :) EyeSerene^talk 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

otherwise engaged

I'm mainly going to be otherwise engaged for the rest of the day. It looks like the boiler-room is really churning, especially at Mario Vargas Llosa, The General in his Labyrinth, and Facundo. We've just had a call for reassurance at The General in his Labyrinth. I think everything's going splendidly, but perhaps someone else can say that too? Be back later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Back briefly. My goodness, it is AWESOME what's going on out there. I am truly in awe! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bump for Mario Vargas Llosa

Hi everybody. With the deadline fast approaching (or arrived, it's 4:30 AM...), I'm requesting any input, help, suggestions, copyedits, MoS sweeps--anything you guys can can muster to help this article be ready for FAC. Acer and I have been doing our best to address all of Awadewit's points found on the MVLL talk page. There are still a few issues that need to be addressed, mainly an expansion of the Legacy section to include writers he has influenced. I'll do my best to get these done as soon as possible tomorrow. Thanks for all the help you guys have been! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Status check on Gabriel García Márquez

I was looking at Gabriel García Márquez just now, wondering if it would be helpful to do a copyedit and make some notes for the editors, since this was one of the articles that the students said they wanted to take to FA. Arantxa.rap has done some recent work, and there's been a little activity from FA team members, but there have been no major changes for a few days and the peer review doesn't have responses on it so I don't know if those points have been addressed. I see some comments from Jbmurray to the effect that the article should really make use of the Dasso Saldivar source; I see there are a lot of references to Saldivar in the article now. I'll do a copyedit, but I am more concerned about whether the content is there. I don't have much of a literature background so I can't really assess this. Any other opinions? Mike Christie (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the editors could respond to the peer review - mentioning what has been addressed - that would help a lot. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth

Is at FAC. Yomangani^talk 08:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa

Mario Vargas Llosa is at FAC. A small dispute has erupted over the use of Spanish sources. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya I don't really understand what's going on. Should I say something? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnchan98, you should feel free to intervene or not. I think you might want to have a look over at the FAC debate for The General in His Labyrinth. I think that Eshiu and Carlaty are doing a great job there. Not getting too involved in anything over-controversial, but showing willingness to think about the comments and suggestions made. That seems a good way of going about things. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And as I've said, once I'm told what I have to translate, I will do so. As, indeed, I did for El Señor Presidente. But it's not yet clear what if anything needs translating. Once there is some consensus on that, I will be the busy translator. I have, incidentally, a published book-length translation to my name, not that it matters so much as I understand that the format is to include the Spanish too so that others can check on it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of FAC but not necessarily directly relevant here: don't feel that the aim of FAC is to convert every oppose to a support. The criteria and policies are interpreted differently by different people (and if the wording of those policies is the same as last time you nominated you are lucky indeed). If you find yourself doing major rewrites or restructuring to satisfy the one opposer among a number of supporters, consider that you may be changing the article from what the other reviewers are supporting. Some supports and opposes will be judged invalid on the merits of their arguments, some will just be wrong. Yomangani^talk 09:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The FAC director and his deputy (SandyGeorgia) are familiar with the policies and will disregard invalid opposes. I don't think it is necessary to further debate the translation issue. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I really wouldn't bend over backward to appease Rima. He/she still seems to be holding a grudge over a misunderstanding with jbmurray days ago. Wrad (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And me. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Lucky that Geogre isn't involved in this nom then (have a nose around, it's the most entertaining thing I've seen on WP for months) Yomangani^talk 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yomangan for the pass through to Geogre's talk page. I so agree: super entertaining. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone addressed Outriggr's comments? He seems to have a genuine point regarding the content as opposed to the arguments over how policies should be applied (arguments that belong on the policy pages). Yomangani^talk 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Feast request

Skomorokh, the GA reviewer at The Feast of the Goat, has indicated it still has real problems in his view for GA (see his talk page for a comment). I am swamped at work and elsewhere; if anyone would like to take a look and see what they think needs doing that would be great. Sorry I can't do more myself. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you point us to the comment? Maybe I'm missing something. He did make some changes last night, but didn't comment. The students are kind of under the impression that they've done what he suggested. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment is at User talk:Skomorokh#FotG query. To quote:

To be honest, it needs work. I extended to today (Monday) and it still does not meet GA standards; too much opinion is baldly stated as fact when it should be attributed and qualified; and the adaptations section is far from comprehensive. That said, the article has come on an awful lot in ten days. I will try to fix what I can.Skomorokh 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, April 16

OK, here's what's left.

First, the two at FAC seem to be doing OK on the whole, though your views are welcomed:

• Mario Vargas Llosa is at FAC. Issues are being addressed. I hope to get some translations done today.

• Still a couple of translation issues, but I won't be able to get back to the library this week; ideally student editors will be able to post original Spanish themselves. My feeling is that we're going above and beyond on this particular issue, but so be it. If I have time, I'll do a final copyedit, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

With my first final tomorrow and with little-to-no studying under my belt I've realized I don't have time to be checking my watchlist every 11 minutes. I'm completely lost on what the issues are about the Spanish/English translations and therefore haven't even been trying to follow that debate. Finding out more about La Nueva Novela is on my to-do list, but there's nothing in the current sources I have so I have to make a trip to the library sometime. Other than that, if there are any outstanding issues that need my attention, please ping me on my talk page. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I think everything's more or less under control. No worries. Good luck tomorrow! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The General in His Labyrinth ditto.

The following are currently at a bit of a standstill:

• Facundo. Needs both a copy-edit and a GA review. Ideally, in that order! Not a sure-fire thing for GA, I'd say, but students need a bit of feedback.

Passed. And it was better than I thought. You'll see that I've been doing a progress report for each article here. So far, Facundo is our second most-edited article. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Feast of the Goat. See above on what still needs doing for GA review, though ideally it would be nice to have more specifics. Frankly, it looks done to me.

• I'm working on this one, though really IMO it should be done already. I may, however, be too close. Another set of eyes might help. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Have pinged the GA reviewer. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Now GA. EyeSerene^talk 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I, the Supreme. Has a problem with one quotation (I hope to fix that this afternoon), plus synopsis needs addressing. I may do this if nobody else does. Otherwise, also, basically done.

• A little dodgier than I'd realized. I've put some work into this including getting going on the synopsis.And I'm aware, incidentally, that when I add content I run the risk of adding Original Research, as I fall back on my so-called expertise. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps Acer can take a look? I don't think the students are going to do much more, if anything, so it should be either passed or failed now. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is how I see it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• If someone else can copy edit Facundo, I can do the GA review. I am frankly exhausted with copy editing at the moment and I will have a stack of papers to grade come tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think there's end-of-semester exhaustion this end, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Facundo looks interesting; in the next day or so, I'll give it a browse. (This does not constitute, for those chomping at the bit, a first-right-to-copyedit option. ;) –Outriggr § 05:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Outriggr! both Mike and I have copyedited this article to death, and a fresh pair of eyes would be most welcome... ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that—but Awadewit asked... When I looked yesterday, it did have an errant comma, so I'll fix that at least. :) –Outriggr § 22:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NB I'm going to be caught up in a conference the next few days, so my attention will be diffuse at best. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not really here.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

THANK YOU FA TEAM! (if you're unsure what I am referring to, see The General in His Labyrinth) Thanks to everyone for helping us out! We really appreciate it so much! I love that little bronze star so much! :-D Eshiu (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me

I just want to give a huge shout out to all members of the FA team for all your work, help and mentoring for Mario Vargas Llosa. Couldn't have done it without you guys. Thanks :) Barnstar of Awesomeness for everyone!

Lincolnchan98 (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)