Talk:El Señor Presidente

.

Comments and questions from Awadewit

What a pleasure to read this article! The editors' hard work has made me decide to purchase this novel and read it - that is the highest praise I can offer - they have made me want to learn even more about the subject. To move on to the actual article itself - I know that the editors are eventually hoping to get it to featured article status, so my comments are going to be extensive: please don't be frightened - I just want to offer a thorough critique now so that later reviews become easier and easer. I've done the featured bit a lot and I tend to think it is easier to do revision before one arrives at FAC. :)

Expansion, rewriting, reorganization, deletion

• The plot summary needs to be more general than it currently is. Beginning with some generalized statements so that the reader knows where the story is going would be particularly helpful. It is not necessary to retell the story in the order it happens.

• We are working on the plot summary but the only thing I am afraid of is that by generalizing it may seem like our own analysis, which I know is a big no no. Any suggestions?--Katekonyk (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Despite what some wikipedia editors say, all plot summaries are interpretations because each person summarizes a book differently - each person thinks different points are important to highlight. However, there is general agreement among other editors that our articles should have plot summaries. Thus the more people that agree on those general statements, the better. It is a tricky part of the article and there is no perfect way to do it. Sometimes writing drafts on a subpage of the article talk page helps work out the kinks. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Be sure that each character and place is introduced in the plot summary so that the reader who hasn't read the book can follow the summary. The summary is primarily for them. I realize that summarizing this book must have been incredibly difficult, but going back to the drawing board several times is sometimes necessary. (Hamlet was surprisingly difficult, too.) You might also try reducing the number of details - try streamlining the summary, if possible.

I looked over the plot summary and it seems at through every character mentioned is introduced. I am under the impression that the plot summary is supposed to be rather short and concise so I didnt want to add too much introduction surrounding every character... what do you think? --Mfreud (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A short phrase explaining who Major Farfan is and who the military figures are aligned with (particularly in Part One) will resolve any remaining ambiguities. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Epilogue" includes overtly interpretative material from critics. While it is hard not to make a summary interpretative, Wikipedia has tended to stay away from including critical material in summaries.

Has this been resolved now? I think this section has been greatly re-worked since you compiled a helpful list of edits for us so I am just wondering if this section is good now or if you suggest that we give it some more work?--Mfreud (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, statements such as "This is an important episode because it leaves readers with one final impression of life under a dictatorship, demonstrating how one can be reduced to madness in this environment" and "This, according to Lloyd Hughes Davies, 'recalls the opening; but now they strike a more cheerful note and the initial incantation to evil seems far removed from the peaceful evening prayer recited by the mother of the newly released student.'" need to be cut and replaced with less overtly analytical material. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Katekonyk has now gone over the Epilogue and removed those overly analytical quotes/material. How does it look now?--Mfreud (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that takes care of that problem. Now, however, that section is tiny compared to the rest. Hopefully that issue will be resolved with a rewriting of the plot summary. It is out of balance, so to speak. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The epilogue is only three pages long, the other parts are more than 75pages long. It is a vital section to the story but I am confused as to how to go about making the epilogue summary as long at the other parts. Maybe we should just take out the divisions so that the epilogue doesn't look so short? Also, we don't quite know how to go about re-writing the plot summary again, we were under the impression that we have been doing that... any thoughts or further suggestions?--Katekonyk (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see - the short epilogue may have to stay. I don't think removing the subsections would be a good idea, as then there would be a big block of text. As for rewriting the plot summary - more copy editing is in order, but other people can do that who haven't been starting at it day after day. I think it reads much better now. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest paraphrasing a greater number of the quotations from literary critics - try to make them accessible to the lay reader.

• Much of what is in "Genre" section seems like it belongs in the "Significance" section.

After discussing with the othe MMM editors, we have removed the genre section and tried to encorporate it into signifigance as other feature article pages we looked at didn't even have a genre section and moreover, almost the enitre section talked about the novel's signifigance. Is this okay?--Mfreud (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is critical that this article have a genre section (Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark and Night (book) do, for example, and they are all FAs). The article states that this text is a dictator novel - that needs to be explained to the reader and the book's place in that genre needs to be explained as much as possible. Genre is one of the key ways that we interpret literature - whether a text is fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry, etc. - all of these answers change our approach to it. We cannot leave out the answers to these crucial questions. Many of the answers fall under the category of "genre". Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Tyranny and alienation" section needs to be expanded.

• The "Dehumanization" section needs secondary sources.

• The "Fertility and destruction" section needs to be focused around its topic to a greater extent.

• I have placed the "Truth" section as a subsection of "Reality vs. dream", but those two sections could probably be made part of one larger section.

To be honest, I have not been looking forward to fixing these theme sections because it has been such a stuggle to find the appropriate sources to develop them. That said, I began with the first section. I have re-written a few of the sentences in the first paragraph, and tried to cut down on direct quotations but am finding it difficult to do. I think I was able to eliminate one through re-wording and at least cut down on a couple of the others. I don't know if truth is integrated well enough yet, but I did what I could to tie everything together. I also apolagize for my spelling throughout this process, being a literary scholar yourself, it must drive you nuts!!! Thanks again for all of your continued advice!--Mfreud (talk) 08:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better. Copy editing will reduce the rough edges. (By the way, have you tried WikEd? It is a wonderful little tool that makes editing easier - it color codes the box on the screen, for example, so it is easy to distinguish one kind of text from another and checks spelling!) Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The "Characters" section repeats some ideas of the "Themes" section. I would try to delete the ideas that repeat. For example, a few of the ideas in the second paragraph of "The President" could be moved to the "Writing" part of "Themes" and a few could be deleted. Be sure that the characters are all described analytically, such as the material on The Zany. Character lists that just describe the characters in terms of the plot are not much help (they are kind of like CliffsNotes, actually, and an encyclopedia is not CliffsNotes!).

I have reworked the paragraph on the President but don't know if it is up to wikipedia standards yet. How are the other charter's sections looking? I take it that the Zany is done well enough but what about the others?--Mfreud (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The section needs some copy editing, but the substance is better. Later, we might try to cut down on the President and Zany a bit so that the plot summary and character descriptions don't take up so much of the page, but this is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like the articles repeats the same information at times. For example, the bit about the novel not being set in a particular place or time. Is there a way to cut down on this?

• I would cut out the section on "Publication details" - it is very difficult to establish a reliable publishing history. I would just try to find the first date of publication and the first English translation (since we are the English Wikipedia). Don't worry about the rest. We are not bibliographers (thank god!).

• Much of the detail regarding narrative style in the "Significance" section should probably to be moved to the "Style" and "Genre" sections - the topics are so similar, it would make more sense.

• The article needs more information on the reception of The President.

Is it okay that we just got rid of the reception section instead seeing as it was incorporated into the awards section?--Mfreud (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No. There should be some sort "Reception" section, detailing how well the book sold and what critics thought of it at the time it was released, etc. Sorry to make more work for you. See, Le Père Goriot, Mary: A Fiction, Pattern Recognition (novel), and Uncle Tom's Cabin for various ways to do this. Awadewit | talk 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind more work, I am just a little nervous that I won't be able to find the information. The trouble we have been running into doing research on this book is that many of the sources are in Spanish. Although I have a working knowladge of Spanish, I find translating to be quite slow going and I don't know what the rules are about using spanish sources on an english wikipedia site. Is that allowed? I spoke to the University librarian about sources and he helped me locate anything, that would be relevent but said that there isn't much else in English that he could find. I also tried the city's largest public library but they had even less on The President in english than the university one. I will hit the books again but the trouble with filling in sections now is that we have put almost all the information we could find on the page and so I am a little worried we won't be able to find enough to fill an entire reception section with english sources. Should we start looking through spanish ones? Is it okay to quote spanish sources if they are translated?--Mfreud (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Monica, if you find a Spanish source that you can tell is useful, then you can pass it to me for translating. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can use Spanish sources if: 1) they are best sources; 2) they are the only sources. However, you cannot quote from them in Spanish or quote from them if the translation is yours. Awadewit | talk 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I was a little troubled by this policy (which seemed rather restrictive), and noticed this: "Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content." Which suggests that a translation is OK so long as the original is in the footnote. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if everyone followed that! :) Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Did Asturias win any other awards for this novel? The "Awards" section, except for the Nobel subsection, is a bit thin.

I couldnt seem to find anything in any of the information on The President or Miguel Angel Asturias that I looked through. I don't know what to do to make it more full. The one other award that he won for this novel is mentioned in the section and that is all the information I could find on it... I can look again but Im not sure that he won any other awards for the President--Mfreud (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest integrating this information into the new "Reception" section that is going to be written and rename this section "Nobel Prize". What do you think? Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I follow what your saying... so we should change awards section to read nobel prize and make nobel prize a subsection of reception?--Mfreud (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the awards section to Reception now, as it can easily be changed back if I have misunderstood you. Also I have talked to the other MMM editors and we are going to try and find something on how many copies have been sold and maybe look through some old spanish newspapers which may have reviews from the 40s when it was originally released. We are not too too sure how to go about this yet but we are planning to consult the university librarian on this in the next couple days. :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The current structure is better and your research plan sounds like a good one. You might also ask Maria. She speaks some Spanish and knows her way around a research library quite well. She might be able to offer some assistance in that area. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The coverage of the three films is uneven - prune some the plot summaries and paraphrase some of the quotations. This is the least important section of the article, so make sure it doesn't balloon out of size.

I have cut out the plot summary of the third adaptation so that this section stays the right length in porpotion to its relevence to the president novel.--Mfreud (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better, but I would still try to paraphrase more of the quotations. Quotations should be used very sparingly - you want the reader to stop and take note of a quotation. That doesn't really happen in this article yet because there are so many of them. Awadewit (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I went to go work on this further, but it seems someone beat me to it. What do you think about the section now? It looks a little bit small but perhaps that is what it should look like? I don't want to add anything back in if I shouldn't, so I am going to leave it for now, but am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on all of this complex editing stuff that has seemed to evolve!--Mfreud (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just the right size and an excellent balance of plot and reception - welcome to the wonderful world of wiki! Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Prose

• All critics, scholars, etc. need to be identified by a tag in the prose of the article. For example, "Latin American literature scholar" or "journalist". Readers need a reason to trust the information coming from these sources. This is a recurring issue throughout the article.

• I would standardized references to "the reader" to "readers" - it avoids the awkward problems of him/her later in the sentence.

I think I have changed all of the references to "the reader" to "readers"- I read over the article and also used the "find" tool to pick up any my eyes may have missed! :)--Mfreud (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• All quotations need to be introduced. For example, always include the name of the scholar who said the quotation. Sometimes it is not clear if the quotation is from the novel or from a scholar.

• The novel was started in the 1920s and completed in 1933, but political conditions delayed its publication for a further 13 years. - "political conditions" is a bit vague - describing those conditions in a phrase or two would help the reader unfamiliar with this history

I changed the sentence and took out "political conditions"... it now reads: The novel was started in the 1920s and completed in 1933, but the strict censorship policies of Guatemalan dictatorial governments delayed its publication for a further 13 years Is that better?--Mfreud (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is much more specific - excellent! Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asturias's distinctive use of dream imagery, onomatopoeia, simile, and repetition - repetition of what?

I think this has been clarified.... it is the repition of certain phrases, one of which I included in the intro section just incase a specific example is needed to clarify... if of certain phrases is good enough than feel free to take out the example!--Mfreud (talk) 01:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we need the example or not - let's see what other people think. I like examples, but I am biased since I am a literary scholar myself. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• From this experience Asturias wrote "Los mendigos políticos" (The Political Beggars), the short story which was to be expanded upon and eventually inspire El Señor Presidente. - "expanded into" perhaps?

I dealt with this, I hope. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, the Zany has fled in a delusional state and broken his leg before collapsing into a garbage heap. - confusing

I looked up this sentence in the plot summary and found that it currently reads: Meanwhile, the Zany, in his delusional state, flees town and the readers are given a glimpse at the psychological impact of living under a dictatorship. Is this less confusing?--Mfreud (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• The pair seek out Camila's aunt and uncle but are refused entry, so they return to the bar. - refused entry to where?

They are refused entry into Camilia's aunt and uncle's home, they don't want to let her in for fear of being associated with her father's escape. I looked up this sentence in the plot summary but it seems to have been already clarified and fixed. It now reads: Back at the Two Step Bar, Miguel Angel Face visits Camila. He tries to find her a home with her aunts and uncles but they all refuse to take her in for fear of being associated with Canales and his escape - Do you think it needs more rewording or does it make more sense now?--Mfreud (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• The President has become truly invasive in his watch over the populace. - invasive? Perhaps a better word here?

I think this has been removed from the plot summary as I could not spot it. --Mfreud (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• General Canales escapes into a village and, assisted by three sisters and a smuggler, crosses the frontier of the country. - into what other country?

I cannot find this sentence either. I think it has been removed also, perhaps it was too specific?--Mfreud (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asturias combines "poetic exploration into the inner most recesses and reality of the human mind" with "the material content of an urban mass caught in the grip of an iron regime."[5] Franklin heralds the synthesis of these two elements as "a real contribution to the novelistic genre of America."[6] - These sentences need to be better integrated into the article. They need a home.

I have tried to integrate and expand on these sentences so that they make more sense within the context of the Literary signifigance section. I have deleted the repition of ideas that have come up in this section so that everything is (hopefully) only mentioned once. To be honest, I am sort of stuck on these Signifigance and Style sections, im not too sure how to proceed... so any suggestions you could give me as to how to further improve the article would be great. Thanks again for all your help.--Mfreud (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's deal with this problem below - the new "Literary significance" section is now kind of divided between several ideas. It is very difficult to figure out how to organize all of this information - of that I am well aware. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asturias is therefore able to deliver a broader message about dictators and terror. - What is this message?

I cannot seem to find this sentence anywhere in the article, should we consider this taken care of?--Mfreud (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• The nicknames of the characters also employs this technique. By omitting specific names, Asturias creates a distance between the words and things. - Can you give a specific example? (Some are listed in another part of the article - perhaps move them here?)

When working on the Reality and Theme's section, I took this out because I noticed it was not sourced and I don't know where to find a source for it. When we first began this themes section, we were under the impression we could use lecture notes. Now that we know we can't, we have been trying to clean this stuff up and source as much as we can. As such, if I can find a source in the next couple weeks that talks about this point I will integrate it back in, but for now I have taken it out as it seems like a comment that should be sourced. What do you think?--Mfreud (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be sourced. Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• For example, General Canales is killed by the false news that the President was at his daughter Camila's wedding and Angel Face is killed by being told the lie that Camila has become the President's mistress. - These examples need to be explained more clearly.

I have changed this to read: For example, General Canales dies upon being (falsely) informed that the President was at his daughter Camila's wedding. The words in the newspaper that the President attended his daughter's wedding were printed by order of the President.[42] These words, percieved as truth by her father, General Canales, breaks his heart and subsequently dies. Miguel Angel Face is killed by the manipulation of words. He is told the lie that Camila has become the President's mistress, and upon hearing this falsified news, he loses the will to live and also dies.[43] These two espisodes in the novel demonstrate how closely writing, words and power are linked. -- Is this a full enough explanation or does it still need work?--Mfreud (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is better - it is just a bit wordy, but some copy editing will take care of that. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• A core element of "Writing and Power" is the 'Manipulation of Language' because it can increase one's power. In both Asturias and the character of the poet readers see how language can be manipulated and get away with the writer. - What is the distinction between Asturias and the poet?

• It could be argued that Camila represents hope; and when the thought of her hope is destroyed through false stories, hope is lost and both her father and husband die. Furthermore, Camila's happiness with her child and their escape to the countryside can be seen as the one glimpse of hope in an otherwise dark and disturbing ending - I don't understand this - is hope lost in Camila or not?

Another MMM editor has worked on this section and hopefully it makes more sense now. It now reads: It can be argued that, in this novel, Camila represents hope because both her father and huband were able to persevere under the dictatorship by thinking of her but then the President destroys that with false stories. When the thought of her loyalty is destroyed through false stories, both her father and husband immediately die and it is because they no longer have anything to hope for, the thought of returning to her. Furthermore, Camila's happiness with her child and their escape to the countryside can be seen as the one glimpse of hope in an otherwise dark and disturbing ending -- What do you think?--Mfreud (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Much better - copy editing will further polish it. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, Miguel Angel Face knew that the only "truth" in his world was the words that the President was speaking at that moment because one cannot even be safe in repeating the words of the President, since he has stolen both language and time. - This is confusing.

• Asturias modeled his mythological leader after his personal observations of Estrada Cabrera, with whom he came into almost daily contact while working as the secretary of court which tried the dictator. - This needs to be made clearer through wikilinking or more explanation - tried him for what? What court?

I tried searching and found it difficult to get academic sources on this point so for now it is linked to a website that seems very factual, if this isnt a good enough source im not sure what else I can do to back up the point above but for now it is clarified i think.... I have expanded off the last sentence above and added: This court trial, spawned from growing opposition to his rule from various business leaders, military officers, intellectuals, and some students only began after several assassination plots failed.[7] It was successful though in removing Estrada Cabrera from office on the charge that he was mentally incompetent.[8]--Mfreud (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Readers are able to see into his innermost thoughts and witness his moral struggle through Asturias’s use of figurative language and vivid imagery. - Can you provide examples of the figurative language or the vivid imagery?

• Through General Cannales' flight, the reader is introduced to the hardships on an indigenous man as well as three sisters who are being taken advantage of by a doctor who visited their ailing mother. - This needs to be explained more.

• Written in the 1920s, El Señor Presidente remained unpublished until 1946, when Juan José Arévalo's more liberal government came to power in Guatemala. - more liberal than what? (more is a comparative, so there has to be a comparison)

Is it okay to change it from "more liberal goverment" to "liberal government" or is it better to put in the comparison to the dictatorial regime that came before Juan Jose Arevalo's?--Mfreud (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you think would help the reader more? Personally I think the comparison would help the reader more, but that is always the question to ask. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded this to make a comparison, i think. Wikipedia's Presidents of Guatemala list might be a useful thing to reference to, but i'm not sure if or how to link this into the section... perhaps a see also which is what some articles have at the top of a section? what do you think?--Mfreud (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the link - good idea. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• El Señor Presidente was first written to protest the rule of Guatemalan dictator Manuel Estrada Cabrera but since its publication the novel has been applied to the gamut of horrors carried out by the multitudes of dictators Latin American countries have experienced. - This is a bit vague and melodramatic.

I have tried my best to re-word this, and have changed it to: Asturias first wrote El Señor Presidente in response to the dictatorial rule of Manuel Estrada Cabrera.[55] Since the novel's publication however, El Señor Presidente has been interpreted as a critique of Latin American dictatorial rule and realistic portrayal of what people living under a dictatorship experiance.[55] Is this less vague and melodramatic? Any suggestions you might be able to give me for the further improvement of these sentences?--Mfreud (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be "realistic", since it is a "magical realism" novel. What about Asturias first wrote El Señor Presidente in response to the dictatorial rule of Manuel Estrada Cabrera.[55] Since the novel's publication, however, it has been used to critique dictatorial rule throughout Latin America. (or something like that). Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to rework this again and followed your suggestions! Is it fixed?--Mfreud (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Instead, Asturias uses repetition of motifs and a mythical substructure to solidify the books purpose and/or message. - Which one - purpose or message?

I have gone over this part in style, and tried to re-word the sentences around this to make this clearer. Does it still need more work?--Mfreud (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Asturias's novel also rejuvenated literature, according to Swanson. - How did the novel rejuvenate Latin American literature?

This phrase does not exist in the article anymore, this issue has been resolved!--Mfreud (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Upon becoming a Nobel laureate for literature in 1967, the praise of the press followed Asturias almost everywhere in the world. - This is vague.

Has this section been cleaned-up and clarified now?--Mfreud (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll reread the entire article again later, but this particular problem has been solved, yes. Awadewit | talk 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Moreover, "the whole of his little country was given over to rejoicing"[1] while they waited for Asturias to return ‘home’ with a exultant entry into the capital. - This doesn't quite make sense - what is the intended meaning here?

With re-wording and newer context under the Awards section, is the intended meaning now clear?--Mfreud (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, much better. Awadewit | talk 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• RCTV lost its terrestrial broadcasting rights in mid-2007 when Hugo Chávez's democratically elected government opted not to renew the network's license, accusing it of siding with the opposition and allegedly violating broadcast laws. - This sentence could be seen as POV - What's with the sarcastic "democratically-elected"?

Layout and illustrations

• Infoboxes are optional - I would consider dispensing with this one, as I don't think it adds anything to the article. I would add the essential information into the article. (I tend to think infoboxes are unsightly.) This is a decision that each article's have to make together, however.

• Could we find a cover from the first edition or the first English translation?

I've looked online, and can't find first edition cover images. Though I note that we have the first edition in our library. (Wow!) Though being a library book, I doubt it'll have a dust jacket. Still, perhaps someone can check it out and scan it? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! Have you checked with your rare books library? They often don't have everything catalogued online yet and they keep dust jackets. :) There is also Wikipedia:Requested pictures. Awadewit | talk 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:CAPTIONS for advice on caption writing.

I know that WP:MOS stuff has been put on hold (and rightly so), so I'll leave all of that until later. Again, let me emphasize how much fun I had copy editing this article and how enjoyable it was to learn about this novel. The editors of this article have provided such a valuable service! All of us have learned so much from them! I think I can speak for all of us on the FA-team when I say: Thank you! Awadewit | talk 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Small point: Please do not strike out the comments of other editors on talk pages (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). It is changing someone else's words and considered a breach of online etiquette. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

More questions

Or at least one to start off with...

even though the reader sees the world the President has created through the eyes of twelve characters, these are almost always very minor, with only a brief appearance in the novel

I don't see what the cited critic is getting at here. Can someone clarify? I'd have thought that the is that it's the president's appearances that are relatively minor. But that's not what this sentence appears to be saying: who are the twelve characters? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a reference there now and if we need to insert one more the reference is: Himelblau 2002, 109--Mfreud (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I see there's a reference, but I don't know exactly what the following means still: Wven though readers see the world the President has created through the eyes of twelve characters, these are almost always very minor, with only a brief appearance in the novel.[17] As such, Himelblau argues that "the novel does not develop the figure of the President as a fictive personage, does not follow the President through a series of actions or diegetic complications that lead to psychological-existential changes or transformations of his character."[17] I think this needs clarifying. It's not the source, but explaining what the source means that's at issue here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

GA

Yay!! Thanks so much to Jackyd101, but also to everyone who's put so much work into this article. It's been very exciting! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

On to Feature Article Status...

Dunno about anyone else, but this talk page was starting to give me vertigo. So I've archived most of the discussion. It seems to me that it would be good to outline some kind of plan as to how to get to Feature Article Status. We have Awadewit's very useful notes above. I see that Mfreud in particular is very conscientiously going through them, making a whole series of improvements. But it might also be useful if someone from the FA-Team perhaps could suggest a To-Do list to orient us now. Then the team could get cracking. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really just say work on Awadewit's suggestions. Wrad (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After that we'll have another look to clean up the rest and then go for it. Wrad (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We are going to need another copy editing sweep before FAC. Is there someone who can volunteer for that? Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling a lot the next two days but should be able to do a pass by Wednesday evening (CDT) if nobody else gets to it. I may have some spare time tonight, but I may not. Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to do anything today, as there is still some substantial revisions going on. I just wanted to start casting about for a good copy editor. Perhaps in a week or so? Awadewit (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And please work on MoS issues and better sources (see my note below; partisan copyvio Venezuelan sources, and IMDb, are used). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rabassa

This edit reminds me that we still don't have full details on the Rabassa source. I doubt that this is in fact a book, as I haven't managed to find information about such a book anywhere. Can we pin these details down? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Style vs. Signifigance

Help! I have been going through the list of suggested improvements and I have hit a wall that I can't quite get over. I know there is at times information overlap in the article but I am having a really hard time deciding which information should belong only to signifigance and only to style. As Awadewit noted, almost the entire genre section really belonged in signifigance and some in style. I made that edit this morning and then moved on to try and deal with the fact that much of the signifigance section deals with style. I understand that we need to reduce overlap of the same ideas/information but the problem I have is that much of the literary signifigance of this book is its sytle. This novel's style is what sets it apart from its contemporaries and still today and as such I am at a loss at what to do.

If anyone could help me sort out these two sections that would be greatly appreciated. --Mfreud (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can have a look, but probably not until tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since much of its significance arises from its style, might it help to merge the two sections under one heading? EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to do that? I was not sure if the article needed seperate sections for both or if it was okay to put the two together...?? --Mfreud (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can (within the broad conventions) lay the article out how you like. Every subject is different, and requires treating differently. If it helps to do this go ahead! EyeSerene^talk 10:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try a "Literary significance and genre" section, but from what I see in the current section, I would suggest at least trying to break it up into "Literary significance" and "Genres". You can go sentence by sentence and figure out what is more related to the long term significance of the book and what is related to a generic discussion of the book. Because genre is such a crucial question for this novel, I think it is imperative that there be a genre section. One of the reasons that I suggested moving the current information is because I wanted to highlight that I don't think there is quite enough information on the genre of the book itself yet. I think another paragraph could be added on magical realism, for example. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

I believe that this article does meet the basic Featured article criteria and is worth a nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do wish you all had addressed the MoS issues first and gotten a peer review; that simplifies the FAC process. The VIO (rethinkvenezuela) is a biased, government propaganda source, and it has a LA Times copyvio -- it is not the kind of source Wiki links to or uses, see WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:EL. VCrisis.com is not a reliable source. The Chávez text can be better sourced to any of the reliable sources at May 2007 RCTV protests; take your pick. IMDb is not a reliable source; with this number of non-reliable sources, redflags go up, and they will all need to be checked. HTML is the default and is not needed in ciations (it clutters them and is ugly). I hope you'll work with someone knowledgeable like Epbr123 (talk · contribs) to clean up the MoS issues; if I had known before it came to FAC, I would have helped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll give it a go. If I stumble, well, I stumble. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is clearly not ready for FAC yet (see my list of comments above and the abundant MOS problems). We, the FA-Team and the wonderfully dedicated editors on this page, have slowly and carefully been working on this article. There is no reason to rush it to FAC. We don't want the first experience these editors have at FAC to be negative and, frankly, we don't want anyone's experience at FAC to be negative. Wassupwestcoast, would you mind withdrawing the nomination until the article's primary editors agree that the article is ready? Mfreud, Katekonyk, and Jbmurray, I also strongly urge you to voice your opinion in favor of withdrawal at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The President (novel). Having been through the FAC process 20 times myself and reviewed many other FACs I know from experience that it is not a good idea to take an unprepared article into FAC. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll remove nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Wassupwestcoast: both for your enthusiasm, and also for listening to the suggestions that the article is not in fact ready. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray (talk · contribs), my bad...but if nothing else, your project got a quick precis of the problems. Sorry to cause a panic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Need sources

I've removed references to imdb.com and rethinkvenezuela per SandyGeorgia. Need replacement references. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

vcrisis.com is gone now too. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

We might have to be walked through much of this. For instance, I'm a little suprised to see that www.imdb.com is not regarded as a legitimate source. vcrisis.com, too, for that matter. (For different reasons.) Replacement sources may be hard to come by. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm far too busy today to help (and having to withdraw a nom always makes my day in terms of the time it takes), but ... IMDb has been visited many times at WP:RSN, only good for basic plot info. VOI, obviously biased propanda source, and a copyvio of LA Times to boot (you can get reliable sources from the other article I gave you, I helped write it, there are plenty). Vcrisis, self-published by ... no expert, to put it politely ... not a reliable neutral source even if it's usually right. More importantly, you should be using the highest quality sources, and there are very good neutral reliable sources analyzing Chavez's shutdown of RCTV, such as the two recent articles which are somewhere in the recent talk page archives of my talk page, access them and search on Chavez if you don't find something adequate in the other article link I provided, but I'm sure there are good sources on that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've checked and we can use imdb.com as a source. See Wikipedia:Citing IMDb which is an old failed policy proposal. It has been inactive and dead for ages (July 2007). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No, see multiple discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard; IMDb is built on user-supplied info. Only it's basics are reliable, and you can surely find better sources if you're aspiring to featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For this article, only the 'basics' are being referenced: that the film exists and the director's and major actors’ names. However, I do disagree with the comment about 'multiple discussions'. Talk page chatter does not constitute a consensus-based guideline. As it stands now, I can't find a guideline or policy page that excludes imdb.com outright. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is not "talk page chatter", but if you are only using it to discuss plot and other minor issues, it's OK, but there still should be better sources if you're aspiring for featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are the two articles I mentioned, I don't recall if they discuss the RCTV shutdown or not, and I don't have time to review, but they are two very comprehensive recent articles about dear Hugo:

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429.html
• http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080301faessay87205/francisco-rodriguez/an-empty-revolution.html

If not, see May 2007 RCTV protests for any number of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the WP:RSN (and its archives), and can't find much consensual discussion about IMDB. It seems to me that it would take a lot of time to find other sources to validate information about release dates and directors, which have just been eliminated with this diff]. We have a university library at our disposal, but I'm not sure how much it has on 1970s or early 1980s Latin American film. Moreover, I'd have thought it was providing the reader with a service to give them a link to IMDB. On the somewhat different point about "biased" sources... When it comes to someone like Chávez, there are no few if any unbiased ones (least of all either the Washington Post or Foreign Affairs!); the point rather is to note where a particular source is coming from. But I will check out the articles you mention. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The President (novel)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

While this article was very briefly at FAC, we had the following comments on its images. I'm reproducing the comments, with my own thoughts. Any advice is most welcome!

• • Image:Asturias.jpg has no fair use rationale for this article (see WP:NFCC#10C and WP:RAT), which may be moot as image does not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding (see NFCC#8). How does an image of the author help us in any way to understand the book? The image is indeed appropriate for the author’s article, but not here.

What images, if any, would significantly contribute to our understanding in this case? If the author's image would not, then frankly I can't think of any. This would make our task easier, of course: we'd just eliminate all the images. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Cabrera.jpg – Licensing information is entirely inadequate. The current tag asserts that the author has released the image into the public domain, yet provides no author or source information. Without this information (User:Puro chapin cannot reasonably be expected to be the author), we cannot be reasonably assured that the license is factual. As Cabrera died in 1923, it is very likely to be in the public domain; this, however, needs to be better researched and, if indeed true, properly tagged.

As per above, we'd simply eliminate this image. I have no idea how to find out the source of this image, though it is used on various other pages on the web.[1] [2] [3] [4] Should it also then be taken off Wikimedia Commons? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:Juan jose arevalo1.jpg has no fair use rationale at all (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT) which, again, is moot as image does not appear necessary to facilitate our understanding (NFCC#8). Yes, Arévalo’s liberal government allowed the book to be published; how is his image germane to this information? How does seeing his image significantly contribute to our understanding of the book?

Ditto both comments above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:El senor presidente 3rded.jpg – WP:NFCC#3A requires “As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole”. What does this image provide above what is already provided by the image in the infobox? Why is the image of another language's cover significant?

Again, what does any image provide to our understanding of the book? I would, however, point out that this is effectively the first edition: it's the first edition of the standard text (revised and corrected by the author himself). If any image deserves to be on this page (and perhaps none does), then this one surely counts.

But as I say, I'd appreciate comments from those who are more familiar with these issues on wikipedia --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that some non-free rationales have been added for these images. I have added one more. Non-free rationales are subjective. Some people demand stricter rationales than others. We'll see when we get to FAC. I am not the best person to ask on this matter because I usually work with free images. However, I noticed Jbmurray's last comment about revision and the third edition. That information should be in the article somewhere - that is crucial. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just quickly... the info's there. It's in the publication history and also in the caption. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not really in the article itself, though, and is there any more to say - what kind of corrections and revisions? Should there be a few sentences explaining the changes? See A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for an example of a small "Revision" section. If the corrections aren't important, then I would say leave it in the caption, but if the changes are significant, that information should go in the body of the article. Awadewit (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

MoS

As a new editor to wikipedia, and an undergraduate student simply trying to create a well-sourced page with links which other people searching for information on this novel can use and see for themselves, i am a little confused as to what I can do to help address all of the critsims over Mos, our images and and imdb links. I understand that wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source but at the end of the day, everything- from published articles to newspaper articles to blogs- all portray someone's opinon. All of the editors working on this page, especially speaking for myself, really value any opinions and suggestions anyone experianced with wikipedia and its many rules can give us. At the same time I am completely lost in the critisms for Mos sweeps and copyediting. It has been noted several times that a Mos sweep for compliance must be done, but who are we supposed to ask to do this? How can we fill in gaps of information when we have searched long and hard and found almost all sources we could (that were credible and not subject to critism) that were in english? I have been working really hard on this page since January and am doing the best I can and trying to make this page something good but I don't know how much more I can personally do to improve Mos. Also, if we delete all of our images, do we then lose GA status because that is one of the stipulations for GA, right?

Any help anyone can give us to help work through the above noted critisms would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time,--Mfreud (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's more than fair that you just don't worry about MoS and image rules and leave that to the FA team. That's actually one of the main reasons we created the team. It's just impossible for new people to get the MoS. Wrad (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the question, I think: what can and should the MMM team editors worry about? As Mfreud says, she has worked tirelessly on this article, and the group as a whole has coordinated extremely well to get to this stage. They would like to know what to do next. I'm beginning to get the sense that they (and we) may have hit a wall, especially if the main thing that prevents this article from moving to FA status is MoS compliance. Is the notion that they can achieve featured status too ambitious? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things: As the article is copyedited, watch it and answer questions. Sometimes copyeditors can get the meaning confused. Do the stuff Awadewit and other reviewers point out. At least everything that you can. Lastly, while all sources are biased, FAs should use only the best sources available. Peer reviewed scholarly articles will thus be more respected than blogs, which have no review system. Make all of your sources the very best you can in this regard. Wrad (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through and fixed all of the MOS Quotation and MOS Dash issues I could find. I may be willfully blind, but I don't see a lot of other MOS issues right now. There are a few sourcing issues (marked with citation needed tags) and copyediting is needed, but this article is in pretty good shape. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions: I assume we are going with Canadian English here? Are we using the serial comma or not? We also seem to be hyphenating more than I am used to (e.g., "re-affirmed") - is this part of Canadian English? (I just want everything to be consistent!) Awadewit (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I for one am not at all sure what Canadian English is... FWIW, I'm a Brit who tries to adjust to American customs. But I suppose that kind of sums up Canada, too!  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a chart of national varieties of English to help us out. :) Awadewit (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources

OK, a couple of thoughts on sources:

• There are two "citation needed" flags currently in the "Background" section. Both deal with the downfall of Cabrera Estrada. Here's a possible source, which will could be consulted: Kit, Wade. "The fall of Guatemalan dictator Manuel Estrada Cabrera: US pressure or national opposition?" (Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies = Revue canadienne des études latino-américaines et caraïbes, Can. J. Lat. Am. Caribb. Stud., 15:29, 1990, p. 105-127 0826-3663).

• More generally, for Guatemalan history, there are the following possibilities: Jim Handy, Gift of the devil : a history of Guatemala (Toronto: Between the Lines, 1984); Greg Grandin, The last colonial massacre: Latin America in the Cold War (Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2004), though mostly this is about the post-war period. I can see very little specifically on the early twentieth century in the country. But perhaps further research would uncover more.

• I suggest that all citations to "Miguel Angel Asturias: 1899-1974: Writer, Statesman Biography" (there are currently four of them) should be replaced.

• I see no blogs cited in the article. The copyvio/bias problem that SandyGeorgia noted concerned an LA Times article reproduced by a por-Chávez website. That article is no longer available on the LA Times website. We could check it on microfiche: Jones, Bart (2005-05-30). Hugo Chavez Versus RCTV: Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup. Los Angeles Times.

If there are any other issues with sources, it would be good to hear them. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more issues:

• Full details (i.e. page numbers) are required for this source: Martin, Gerald. "Miguel Angel Asturias: El Señor Presidente" Landmarks in Modern Latin American Fiction. Ed. Philip Swanson. London: Routledge, 1990.  ??–??.

I think I just gave this source back to you today so I cannot look up the page number!--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full details (i.e. place, publisher, and date) are required for this source: Rabassa, Gregory. The Life and Works of Miguel Ángel Asturias.

Again, I didn't ever use this source so I am at a loss to provide the details on it...--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't use this source but have talked to Elyse about the details of it...--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This article was also included in the same source as "The 1967 Prize," so I'd assume they can be copied over? Eecono (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Full details (i.e. page numbers) are required for this source: Strömberg, Kjell. "The 1967 Prize." Miguel Angel Asturias, Jacinto Benavente, Henri Bergson: Nobel Prize Library. New York: Gregory, 1971.  ???–???.

Same with this source here....--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As for the page number, I thought I included it in my first (limited) reference, and when I look at the reference now, it seems to still have that page number...am I misreading something? Eecono (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• When an author has more than one item in the References, it is not always clear in the Notes which is being cited. This issue affects citations referring to Himelblau and Martin.

For the Himelblau references, I have gone through the article and notes in the citation the year of the Himelblau reference the citation is referring to. Does this help? Also, For the Martain references, everything cited "Swanson" is from the 1990 book on the references list under Martian and everything else is from the other Martain source on the references list. Except for note 53, all other swanson (or Martain) references now read: Swanson 1990, pg# Is this clear now? Or am I missing something?--Mfreud (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The Krstovic referencing is inconsistent. Is it one article that is being cited? The final reference is also unclear, referring only to the editing book, rather than to individual essays.

I also have no idea where this source is from... I can do what I can to locate it but it might be easier to find another source for this material?? If I had used the book I could help but I don't know what this source is! sorry!--Mfreud (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's sort these out! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More on Krstovic: this would seem to be a collection of reprinted essays. It should be made clear which essays are being cited, i.e. each one should have a separate line under "References." Moreover, as it appears that these are shortened essays, it would be better if possible to cite (and so get hold of) the original publications wherever possible. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)