Talk:Mario Vargas Llosa/Archive 2

Comments

Wow, this article has been improved immensely in the last few days!!! I did another read-through and found a few things that ought to be fixed before it passes the GA nomination. I think you are very close to achieving GA status, though.

• I'd read through the text again to make sure the article is using the proper verb tenses. I see several instances where the present tense is used to describe events in the 1930s.
• The second paragraph of Early life section discusses his maternal grandfather, and then speaks about his "paternal" grandfather's important post; Is that correct or should both be maternal?
• The text needs to be copyedited before it goes to FA; it is probably really close to GA status
• The last paragraph in the Early life section does not flow well - it talks about his marriage and three kids, then goes back in time to his half brothers, then later speaks about his cousin. I'd move the bit on the half brothers earlier in the paragraph when it discusses his father.
• Be sure that there is a citation at the end of every single sentence that has a quotation. I see one instance in the lead where there is no citation after a quote, and an entire paragraph in the body of the article.
• I'm unsure about the appropriateness of the long quote from him about his time in Iraq; the quote may need to be shortened and the rest paraphrased
• I'd like to see more information on his writing before the Style section. I don't see a description of when his first book was published (and was that his first book, or just the first that got accepted?). It says he's "prolific", but how many books did he write? Are they evenly spaced across the decades or did he write more at a certain time. Did he stop writing during periods of increased political activity (such as when he ran for president) or continue at the same pace? Some of this needs to be worked into the biography part.
• The information about Vargos Llosa's political beliefs vs Garcis Marquez's beliefs is irrelevant to this article and could be removed.
• Second paragraph of literary criticism section has no citations
• The Literary criticism section may need to be renamed - I was expecting to read criticism of his works, not literary criticism that he wrote

Karanacs (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (FA-Team)

I'm not too sure how Wikipedia formats work, but would it be more appropriate to have his writings earlier in the article rather than at the end, since he's most known for his writing? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a hard and fast guideline on structure for Biographies of Living People. I've only written one full article about an author, and I did it in chronological order. You might want to browse the list of literature and theatre Featured Articles and see how other authors are presented. Karanacs (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd second Karanacs comments above. This article is much improved, but there are still things to do.

1. There's very little biographical information between 1965 and the political issues beginning in the 1980s.
2. The "Feast of the Goat" section is a bit weak. I've tried to improve it by paraphrasing the long quoted plot summary, but I've left in the attribution to a website. Maybe the SPAN312 work on The Feast of the Goat can help here. This is one place where you can copy your classmates work, because it has all been released under GFDL :-)
3. It would be good to be consistent about citations to newspapers: sometimes the note links to the references section, other times, the information about the newspaper article is entirely in the citation (i.e., inside the ref tag). Note that if you want to put a newspaper article in the references section, it is essential that the article has an identifiable author.
4. The article jumps around a bit, and the sections could be reordered. I may try to suggest alternatives, but I'm no expert on biographies.
5. This is a biography of a living person. Please read the linked guideline. (Okay, it is a bit long, but please scan through it to get the idea.) Particular care is needed in the section (which I have renamed) "Personal life" concerning the controversy between Vargas Llosa and Gabriel García Márquez. Wikipedia cannot use phrases like "There are recent news and rumors..." Instead it should say things like "According to the New York Times, Rodrigo Moya claims that..." with citations that fully back up each such sentence.
6. Be careful about giving undue weight to tangential issues. This applies both to the fracas with Marquez, and to the work in Iraq. Much as I admire Llosa's serious approach, this isn't the place to overemphasize it as it gives the impression of making a political point.

Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow Karanacs, Geometry guy thanks so much for the comments! They've been a huge help. I've tried to fix a lot of the things that you two have pointed out (details of changes in history). What I am worried about is that I may have messed up references/formatting etc. while I was changing around information and adding more sources. If someone could check over that again that'd be awesome. We still need to address the issues of the unnecessarily lengthy Political Involvement section, as well as the few missing citations for both the Political Involvement and Personal Life sections. I don't have the references for those sections so my hands are tied. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

Here are some problems I noticed:

• Lots of Manual of Style discrepancies. I tried to clean up most of them.
• "Although Vargas Llosa has not spoken to him since, he recently agreed to allow part of this book..." Who does "he" refer to in this sentence?
• Make sure book titles are always in italics.
• Consider adding a Persondata template.
• You may want to explicitly indicate which references are in Spanish.

Otherwise looks great. It's well written and well referenced. Nice work. Passing as a GA. Kaldari (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this! Also for all your work helping out with MoS problems! I'm sure we'll be getting soon to the outstanding issues that you've identified. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that's pretty sweet! Thanks for the review. :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the persondata template for you: [1] Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Archiving and towards FA!!

This talk page was getting rather long, and in the spirit of a new start now that the article is a "Good Article," I thought I'd archive most of it. I've kept Karanacs's, Geometry guy's, and Kaldari's suggestions, above, because I'm not sure they've completely been attended to. Among the threads now archived you can find a bunch more possible sources. But I think most of the issues previously raised have been dealt with. OK, now to FA... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request

As a stepping stone to FA, I've put in a WP:Peer review request. Should anyone reply, their comments can be seen at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario Vargas Llosa/archive1. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

One comment so far (from SandyGeorgia). Please could everyone interested in improving this article watchlist the peer review: just follow the link to Wikipedia:Peer review/Mario Vargas Llosa/archive1 and click on "Watch peer review" (or the "watch" tab at the top of the page). Geometry guy 19:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are some very useful comments there! (Thanks, Sandy!) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to post here rather than on the talk page, and I'm sorry if I duplicate anything Sandy wrote. The article looks very close to being ready for a good copyedit and FA nomination. I like the current structure. Here are a few other suggestions:

• The lead doesn't have any information about his early life. You might want to include a sentence or two.
• "When Dora Llosa returned to Arequipa in 1935, pregnant with Mario, Ernesto Vargas ignored her presence and filed for divorce" -> was Dora Llosa somewhere else, and returned to Arequipa to be with Ernesto, or did she leave Ernesto and go to Arequipa. It's a little unclear here.
• Were his half brothers born before him or after him?
• While there are definitely places where he should be referred to by his first name so as not to be confused with his father, otherwise he should be referred to by his last name. There are a lot of area tha should be fixed.
• I think I brought this up before: "Mario's paternal grandfather obtained an important political post in the Peruvian coastal" - from the paragraph, it seems like this should be "maternal grandfather", if it is really his paternal grandfather then you ought to list the grandfather's name if at all possible to eliminate any potential confusion.
• "Some critics still consider this book to be Vargas Llosa's finest and most important achievement" - can you mention one or two prominent critics who think this?
• Was there any negative reviews of his work? What is here is very positive.

We added some, maybe could use some more? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the style section, it's inconsistent whether the works are named in English or Spanish
• Any information on how/why/when he became disenchanted with Cuban gov't policies?
• Any information on why he chose to become a Spanish citizen?
• The article ought to specify that One Hundred Years of Solitude is a Marquez novel - I didn't know that.
• I added two fact tags in the Personal life section

Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hello all. One question I have: in the sentence "Vargas Llosa's bold exploration of the propensity of humanity to idealize violence, the comprehensions of war, and a man-made catastrophe...", what are "the comprehensions of war"? It seems this should be rephrased. –Outriggr § 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. First of all, thanks to Geometry guy, Karanacs, Kaldari and SandyGeorgia for all the excellent input and suggestions. Our group had a brief meeting today and we're going to get working on the suggestions as soon as possible. I returned all the books I had out to the library already so I'll head there tomorrow after class and have a crack at this article again.Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I"m going to be assertive here: I copyedited the article after talking to Geometry guy and wouldn't mind being included in your list of helpers (I guess I need to make more noise on talk pages for it to matter). :) –Outriggr § 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many apologies, Outriggr! It's surely not because we didn't appreciate your contribution... So many people to thank! We're very grateful. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been remiss here too. I meant to encourage Outriggr to join the team a couple of days ago. I have now left a a message! Thanks to all! Geometry guy 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Outrigger, on behalf of our group I want you to know that we very aware and deeply appreciative of the work that you have done on this article. I named the above people because of the specific suggestions that they have recently left on the talk/peer review pages of how we can improve this article to gain featured article status. I'm sure you'll be an integral part in that process as well, so once again, many thanks! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lincolnchan98 et al. No worries, and thank you. These were some of the points I wanted to raise after reading through the article. I haven't read others' comments, so apologies if I duplicate anything.

• As I mentioned above, I can't make sense of "Vargas Llosa's bold exploration of the propensity of humanity to idealize violence, the comprehensions of war, and a man-made catastrophe brought on from the unexpected consequences of fanaticism...". What are the comprehensions of war, and is this a follow-on to "Llosa's bold exploration of ___" or "the propensity of humanity to idealize ___..."? I assume it's the former; the clauses should be rewritten to clarify the syntax, and I don't think "comprehensions of war" quite works.
• Try to be as precise as possible, without using jargon, when talking about the style of literature, and provide examples when possible. For example, the sentence "Most of Vargas Llosa's novels embody traditional themes that surround the conflictive nature of the characters and the illustration and interrelation of the varied cultural, socio-economic, and political aspects of Peruvian and Latin American society" packs a lot of ideas but does not follow them up.
• Same with "...what he calls a "total novel", that is, the depiction of all the levels of a society through fiction." Clarification of "all the levels of society" would help, as would elaboration of "total novel".
• Why did Vargas Llosa punch García?
• The Feast of the Goat: says "Published in 2000", but the caption says the image is of an English edition from the 1990s. It might help to clarify which publication dates are original, or at least which are English, if any. One option would be to put the original publication date at the end of the header for each novel, in parantheses. For example, how do I intepret "La casa verde (The Green House, 1966)", and if 1966 is English, the original isn't given—probably should be. Hope this helps. –Outriggr § 00:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I added a negative reception about "Time of the Hero" that I researched. Would it be better to create an entirely new section about Literary Crticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommaso88 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cor blimey!

Tommaso88 and Lincolnchan98 have been working up a storm this evening. Well done! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Politician?

Here's a thought that may be controversial, so I'm floating it here. In the first sentence of the lead, we have that MVLL is a "writer, politician..." and so on. But you know, I'd say it's more accurate to say he's a would-be politician. He's made political pronouncements all his life, of course. But he's never held any office. And he thought he'd naturally accede to the presidency in 1990, but the Peruvian people didn't buy his gig, and so he went off in a huff (writing a bunch of things about how poorly Peru had chosen) and became a Spanish citizen. (Clearly, by the way, the preceeding is far from encyclopaedic writing, heh.) But he's never been a politician, much though he thinks that he should have been.

Put it this way, and again I'm being a little provocative: he's as much and as little a politician as the US billionaire Ross Perot. Running for President doesn't make you a politician. (And anyhow Pablo Neruda also ran for President, and was very politically active, in Chile, and we wouldn't call him a politician... uh-oh, I see wikipedia does...)

One thing that should be added to the article, however, is his role in the Uchurraccay (sp?) report. That is one of his few really important (and very controversial) interventions into the Peruvian public sphere, and indeed the closest he's ever got to having a named political role in anything.

(NB I could be missing something here. But not much...) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life?

What does everyone think of the section titled Personal Life? To me, the feud between MVLL and GGM seems very much like hearsay and speculation, and not fair to either writer. People have been questioning why he punched GGM in the face, and the truth is we don't know--though the speculations are well referenced. I don't know if it should be included at all in the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When you run into issues like this, ask yourself:

• does this incident important to our understanding of the subject?
• is the incident a catalyst for something important in his life?
• in 30 years, will anyone remember (or care) that it happened?

If the answer to all of those is no, then you can probably remove it. Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that MVLL punched GGM in the face - an extraordinary event - and should be in the article. Speculation regarding motivation should not appear. Karanacs (talk · contribs)}, some of your criteria for inclusion is well meaning but not encyclopedic - and not good journalism. All three of your criteria are speculative.

• We can not know if the "incident important to our understanding of the subject" ...speculative...don't know motivation.
• We can not judge if it is "a catalyst for something important in his life" ...speculative ...no crystal ball.
• We have no idea if "in 30 years, will anyone remember (or care) that it happened"... speculative...no crystal ball.

What we do know for certain is that MVLL popped GGM in the face. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the incident happened 30 years ago, it would likely be known by now what if any impact this has had on his life. If other information comes up later, then it could be added later. Personally, I don't think that this is an extraordinary event - the only thing that makes it the least bit noteworthy for a newspaper is that it involved two famous writers; otherwise, an angry man punching another man in the face would not be noteworthy. So, we've established why a journalist would write about it. Why would an encyclopedia? IMO, because the event has lasting importance. Since I don't know anything about the subject beyond what's in the article, I can't answer that question. If the sources don't give any reasoning for mentioning this, or why it's an important event, then I say leave it out. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked what Tomasso did--referring to the essay and not including the actual speculation. The fact that he punched GGM in the face is a fact. As far as the reasons behind that, only MVLL knows them. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I found a really awesome source on this interesting but not so meaningful subject. A witness of the event and friend of Vargas Llosa that wrote a book about the writer. I have changed it a bit and added some stuff. Feedback is welcomed if any... Tommaso88 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Lincoln and Tommaso you two really outdid yourselves today (and yesterday), great work expanding the major works and style sections not to mention the others... This article is a whole new beast compared to the one I copyedit some time ago, superb work. PS I'll do another copyedit run tonight (or tomorrow morning)Cheers! Acer (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

Vargas Llosa has written a book-length study on the Nobel-prize-winning Columbian author Gabriel García Márquez. The writer was a onetime friend of Llosa, but the two parted ways in 1976 when Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes.[64] In an essay titled "The terrific story of a black eye", Rodrigo Moya explores the underlying reasons for the friendship's dissolution.[65] A photo of García Márquez's black eye was published in 2007, reigniting public interest in the feud.[66] Although Vargas Llosa has not spoken to García Márquez since 1976, Vargas Llosa recently agreed to allow part of his book to be used as the introduction to a new edition of García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, which is being re-released in Spain and throughout Latin America.[67]

In 1971, Vargas Llosa publishes García Márquez: historia de un deicidio, as his doctoral thesis for the University of London written as a book[68]. This limited edition of 20,000 quickly sold out. Despite great public demand (and at least one pirated edition), Vargas Llosa refused to allow its republication for many years.[citation needed] The study was eventually included in a 2006 volume of his collected works, which has not been translated into English. He has also written book-length studies of Gustave Flaubert and of the Valencian writer Joanot Martorell. Vargas Llosa discusses his own novels in A Writer's Reality (1991).

The paragraphs above are from the personal life section. They seem to imply that he wrote two books about GGM, were there indeed two or only one? and in case it was two, the first one is not explained. The list of works only lists one book about GGM, with the date of 1971 which I take to be the second. What about the first? Is there any information on it? Acer (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

I was reading thru the article to do a copyedit like a promised and I figured that the structure here could be improved. To that end I made two experimental versions: Version 1 and Version 2 of this article. In the first one I separated his life from his novels and placed all the biographical info in the article at the beginning. The second version is similar somewhat to the present article, except that the Political involvement section at the end would also include details about his later life. Both versions eliminate the personal life part (text is merged elsewhere, though I haven’t figured out where to place it in Ver 2). Anyway, please let me know what you guys think, and feel free to edit my tests mercilessly Acer (talk) 22:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think version 1 is definitely the better approach; completing the biography and then moving on to an assessment of his work seems much more straightforward. Mike Christie (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Version 1. one is better. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow Acer, both versions are very pretty. I like the flow of the 1st version. The chronology of his life flows well, then the expansion of his writing/style is a good way to end. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

By the will of the people.. nevermind, its done :P The writer part needs to be developed abit since it's a bunch of sentences glued toguether (in chronological order) but that shoulndt be too hard. You'll notice that I used the first sentences from each of the major books sections for that. I did it step by step so it can be easily reverted if there are any objections. Acer (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleared up the confusion. Its only one book... Got some sources mixed up. Back on track.Tommaso88 (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments

This article is looking very very good. I reread it with my FA reviewer glasses on, and these are the things I think need to be addressed:

• Lead needs to be revamped. It should sumarize the entire article, at least mentioning briefly something from each section. See WP:LEAD
• Citation needed tag in section about print edition of his Doctoral thesis
• Vargas Llosa recently agreed to allow part of his book to be used as the introduction to a new edition of García Márquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude, which is being re-released in Spain and throughout Latin America - This needs some sort of date reference. "Recently" could mean 2008 or anytime in last 10 years
• "This work is Vargas Llosa's most complete, most ambitious, and longest novel since La guerra del fin del mundo" - It would probably be best to start this with, "According to XXXX, this work..."
• Just about every paragraph in the Style section begins with "Vargos LLosa". This can probably be changed up a bit to allow for better flow.
• I'd move the Other works section to be part of the biography sections, since the article is not going as in-depth into those works.

Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Karanacs! I will get on to this during the day and try to fix as much as I can. Tommaso88 (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How close 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) 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I also want to take this opportunity and thank all of you out there for the amazing feedback and guidance of the past weeks. Your dedication has been much appreciated. As Lincoln said, this is our baby! jaja... It would pretty awesome to acquire a featured status on the article, meaning: dedicate the remaining 3 days to make this master piece as perfect as possible. I will be working with Lincoln throughout the reminder of this week. Any help, tips or suggestions to improve this article are more than welcomed.Tommaso88 (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! We've all enjoyed it. Take a look at this discussion; if you want to go for it, you'll get support from us, though I don't want to claim it's going to be easy. Also look at this thread, in which Awadewit makes some comments that you may find useful. I look forward to seeing what you can do. Mike Christie (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

i also want to thank everyone! lincoln and tommaso, u guys have done so much, u guys really did a lot that thursday! ive been checking in here, but also let me know whatever u guys need done!Isabel-clase (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Isa! Take a look at this discussion as well as the previous section on more comments. If you can find anything that needs to be done in relation to that, go for it. I think that theres 2 citations needed that we need to find. You can check this in the article. I'll be working on this up until the deadline. Let me know if you need help or if you are on to something. Tommaso88 (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, guys. If the three of you can work together on this... Let's go for it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions from Awadewit

This was a very interesting article! The MMM editors are sure teaching me a lot, and I thank them for that! I think that. overall, more must be added to the biography, to flesh out Vargas Llosa's life, and that the sections on his works need to be expanded and revised to avoid repetition. Here are my specific suggestions:

Expansions, deletions, revision

• "Citation needed" tags need to be filled in.

• Vargas Llosa began his literary career in 1957 with the publication of his first short stories, Los jefes and El abuelo. - This is confusing - what about his journalism and the play mentioned earlier?

fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Writing career" section needs to include other information that explains his writings in terms of his life. See the "Life" section of Jane Austen or the "Biography" section of Mary Shelley for examples of this. The writings are briefly contextualized within the events of the author's life.

• Is there any way more could be done here - what happened in Vargas Llosa's life during the 1970s, for example, besides the production of novels? Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

added some additional information about his life during the 70's Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the editors scrap the "Major works" section and integrate the material into the "Style" section. Much information is repeated and much of the detail in the "Major works" section would help explain the vague claims in the "Style" section. Another solution would be to discuss the works in genre groups. (This is what we have done at a work-in-progress - the "Literary life" section of Mary Shelley.) This is another approach that reduces repetition and allows you to write about the works a bit more than a "Style" section permits. Whichever way the editors decide, more needs to be written on the author's style and themes - I still felt after reading the article that I didn't really know what he wrote about.

• The introduction of a mythical world in La nueva novela caught the attention of literary critics. Vargas Llosa depicts such mythical world in the novel The Green House - This idea is going to have to be explained in much more detail.

• The writer's novels cover many literary genres, including comedy (Pantaleón y las visitadoras),[5] crime fiction (¿Quien mató a Palomino Molero?),[6] the historical novel (La guerra del fin del mundo),[7] the political thriller (La fiesta del chivo),[8] and erotic literature (Los cuadernos de don Rigoberto). - This needs to be expanded and explained - what kind of comedy? what kind of historical novel? etc.

• More here would be nice! Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So instead of expanding them briefly in the "Style" section, I decided to incorporate the literary genres into other parts of the article. I didn't like the list that was there, and it looked to me that expanding the list would just end up as repetition of what was found in other sections. I also tried to include more information about the specific literary genres in the sections I incorporated them. Hope it's enough. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• His writing style often includes intricate changes in time and narrator, similar to the style of American novelist William Faulkner, whom Vargas Llosa acknowledges as an extremely important literary influence. - Expand and explain - This is a good example of repetition - it is repeated several times under the "Works" section - rather than do that, include it once and explain in more detail how Falkner influenced Vargas Llosa.

• The works of Mario Vargas Llosa's are viwed as both modernist and postmodernist novels.[10] His early works, such as La casa verde and Conversación en la catedral seem to be of a modernist vein; however, his later texts, including Pantaleón y las visitadoras, La tía Julia y el escribidor, Historia de Mayta, and El hablador appear to follow a postmodernist mode of writing. - Briefly explain the modernist and postmodernist elements in the novels - these terms are extremely vague - define them for Vargas Llosa's novels.

• The writer's novels also embody traditional themes that surround the conflictive nature of a novel's characters. - Expand and explain - this is too vague.

• Many of his earlier novels were set in Peru, while in more recent work he has expanded to other regions of Latin America, such as Brazil and the Dominican Republic.[6] One of his more recent novels, El paraíso en la otra esquina (The Way to Paradise, 2003), is set largely in France and Tahiti. - Explain to the reader why this is an interesting change.

• The book immediately impressed critics due to its vitality and adept usage of sophisticated literary technique - Statements such as this are meaningless and should be deleted - readers by and large aren't going to be familiar with most of the author's works - they need specifics (that is why writing author biographies is so difficult!).

• After reading the article, I still don't know why The Green House was so important - just saying it was great and important doesn't explain why it was to the reader - show its critique and impact!

• The "Other works" section relies too much on plot summary and autobiography - is there no more to say about these works?

• "Legacy" section: What writers has Vargas Llosa influenced?

• This is still missing. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Having trouble finding information on writers he has influenced. Anybody know of any, and then I can look them up?Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I made some comments on that here, and as I said 1) I think the better bet would be to look for the influence of particular books and 2) I'm prepared to do some hunting around, but probably not until tomorrow. Let's not let that hold up the FAC. If necessary, I'll deal with any issues that arise about this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why does the "Works" section not discuss Vargas Llosa's non-fiction works? It seems to me that there should be a few paragraphs describing these works somewhere. If the editors decide to break up the discussion by genre, a "non-fiction" is an obvious choice. If the editors decide to go stylistically, discussion Vargas Llosa's non-fiction style is still a must.

• Integrating these into the life helped, but more could probably be said about them. I noticed one was about Victor Hugo - how important is this? That could be added onto the short Flaubert paragraph. Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware the Hugo book's not so important. But that may just reflect my interests. I'd say more on the Arguedas book: MVLL's relationship to Arguedas, who is essentially Peru's other great twentieth-century novelist, is fascinating and complex. But again, I'll admit that this could be simply a particular interest of mine, albeit that I'm not entirely alone on this. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've expounded on The Perpetual Orgy, his most famous non-fiction work. I also added a paragraph discussing his motives for writing non-fiction. I hope that these, included with the paragraph on Garcia Marquez, are sufficient. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose

Some copy editing still to be done. Here are some examples:

• He has continued to write prolifically, and is considered to have had a greater international impact and world-wide audience than any other writer of the Latin American Boom. - The "continued" is confusing here as the timeline is unclear from the previous sentence.

• Vargas Llosa rose to fame in the 1960s with novels such as The Time of the Hero, The Green House, and the monumental Conversation in the Cathedral. - The first time a work of literature is mentioned, it is customary to include its publicate date in parentheses after it.

• The majority of Vargas Llosa's works are influenced by the writer's perception of Peruvian society combined with his personal experiences as native Peruvian. - This is vague.

Was this fixed? I can't find it. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is in the lead. Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• William Faulkner appears as a major influence in Vargas Llosa's major novels. - Faulkner appears in the works or is a major influence on the works? This is slightly confusing.

• There is much speculation about the reasons for his parents' separation; proposals include the social inferiority of Ernesto Vargas to the Llosa family, and the mistreatment and oppression of Dora Llosa by Ernesto. - choppy

Got rid of it. It didn't make sense. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa lived with his maternal family in Arequipa until a year after his parents' divorce, when his maternal grandfather was named honorary consul for Peru in Bolivia. - Is there a good link for "honorary consul"?

What do you mean? It's already wikilinked. Acer (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya I just fixed this today. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• where Vargas Llosa studied at the Colegio Salesiano - What kind of school is this? A small explanation for the uninformed reader would help. Same for the "Colegio La Salle".

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• A year later, Vargas Llosa married his first cousin, Patricia Llosa,[20] with whom he had three children: Álvaro Vargas Llosa, a writer and editor; Gonzalo, a businessman; and Morgana, a photographer. - including their birth years in parentheses would be helpful to the reader

• He studied Marxism in depth as a university student and was enthusiastically induced into Communism after the success of the Cuban Revolution. - I don't think "induced" is the right word here - do you mean "introduced", "seduced", or what?

• Please check to be sure that "Communist" is appropriately capitalized and appropriately lower-cased throughout the article - this can be very tricky!

I think I fixed them all. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• He proposed a drastic austerity program that frightened most of the country's poor. - Is "austerity" the right word here? It didn't seem to match the economic program outlined in the next sentence.

• Since leaving Lima, he has mainly lived in London,[12] but spends roughly three months of the year in his native Peru - I missed when he left Lima.

• Vargas Llosa's style revolves around the roles of both a creative novelist and a historian/propagandist. - A historian and a propagandist are two different things - separate the two or explain why they are being conjoined here.

• Mario Vargas Llosa promotes the creation of a new vision of reality bounded by a non-fictional background by introducing La nueva novela along with other Latin American writers. - wordy and confusing

I hope this was helpful! Awadewit (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, very nice review. I'll get our team to pounce on these suggestions right away. Thanks! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks so much for this! Marvellous! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Review! Thanxxx. Already started fixing some of the stuff Tommaso88 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Small point: Please do not strike out other editors' comments (see talk page guidelines). Because it alters the meaning of the statement, we allow commentators to strike their own comments. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops that's my bad. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks so much for all of the suggestions!Isabel-clase (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My Vision

As you all can tell I've begun a major overhaul of this article. I'm not too sure what I'm doing, or even if I like what I am doing, but it's being done. I spent the entire evening looking through different articles of various authors. Awadewit wasn't joking, biographies are real tricky. Given the number of works MVLL has written, I think it's best we go with a Style section rather than Genre section. I liked the article on Honoré de Balzac. I've removed the Major Works section (it can still be found here) and added sub-headings to the Style section. So the plan is to expand the Style section, referring to the individual works when appropriate; the publication dates, perhaps a brief plot summary and reception of his works will all be found the Literary career sub-section of Biography. I think this is the best way to avoid repetition. I'm going to keep working on this plan for the next couple of days and see how it pans out. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I also just removed the Other Works section. It can also be found here. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks Lincoln! You've put so much time into this! I think its a good idea, repitition is not good! Isabel-clase (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What you think about integrating the some text from the otehr work section into the biography? Somebody suggested that above and I think its a good idea.I can try to incorporate some of the text Acer (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I think a nice place for it would be the literary career section. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That was precisely what I was thinking, you want a stab at it yourself or should I jump in? :) Acer (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this sound? I'll have a run at the style section and I'll let you play with biography. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to integrate the text Acer (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So I've gone through the old Major Works section and extracted all the bits on style that I could find, and stuck them into the style section. Now I need to flesh out those bits of information and make it sound all nice and pretty. I noticed that Acer did a pretty delish merger of the Other Works into the Biography. Awesome possum. Going out for some dinner, then back to the grindstone. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thx :), heres anotehr thought.. right now theres an inbalance in the bio/writer section in favor of his minor works while most of his major novels are only getting a sentence of explanation each. This is because of the merge, but we're gona need to restore balance. So my idea is to integrate the remaining text from the major works there (after you've removed the style parts) so that that section talks alittle about each work without getting into much detail and without talking about the more complicated issues of style. Its past midnight here and I got classes tomorrow (or rather today) morning so I gota hit the sack, but I'll be back tomorrow. Acer (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Acer, I think that's a very good idea. In my sandbox I went through and crossed out all the elements of style that were found in the Major Works section. I think that much of what's left definitely can be integrated into the Biography. What do you think about the information about reception/criticism of each novel? Should we try to stick that in the Writing career section or perhaps create a new section? If we do create a new section, I worry about repetition since we would potentially be talking about the same novels in at least three different spots. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep I'm worried about repetition too, lets try to work the text into the bio and if it doesn't work we'll figure what to do then Acer (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been a little out of the loop on this article recently, as my attention has been focussed elsewhere, and I figured that things were going OK over here. But I do want to say: Lincolnchan98, your willingness to undertake such a major revision of the article, and carry it through, is really very impressive indeed. Few writers (even experienced ones) are prepared to do such a thing, except perhaps under extreme duress. But this is what revision is often all about: the recognition that tinkering at the margins can only get you so far. Well done! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A thought: why not get rid of the "Biography" subsection heading? Then you'd have:

1 Early life and family 2 Writing career 3 Later life and political involvement 4 Style 5 Legacy 6 Selected list of works

I'd also propose changing the last section heading to "Selected bibliography." --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed the "Selected bibliography" back to "Selected list of works" as this is the heading required by the MOS. Awadewit (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Language?

We need to establish a policy on the titles of his novels. A little while ago, in line with some of our other MMM articles and in the spirit of the notion that this is the "English-language" Wikipedia, I tried to turn all the titles into the English, eliminating the Spanish. I see now that some of these titles have been turned back into Spanish, and so there's considerable consistency.

We need to choose one way or another.

An added complication is that several of the translations of MVLL's titles are not literal: this is true most obviously of La ciudad y los perros, but also of Pantaleón y las visitadoras and Lituma en los Andes.

Even so, I would recommend the earlier strategy of using English titles, with perhaps Spanish in brackets at first mention (outside the lead) and where the article goes into more depth. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I had originally changed them to Spanish since it was more chronological (the publication dates looked nicer in order). But I have to admit that many times the Spanish titles look awkward in the article. I'm all for changing them all to English. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Uchurracay?

I've mentioned this before, but... One of MVLL's most significant interventions in Peruvian public life was when he was put in charge of the investigation of a massacre in highland Peru during the 1980s civil war. The subsequent report was very controversial (and remains so). His experience then inspired his writing Lituma en los Andes, his only book (as far as I am aware) set in the Andes, and for many his worst book. What's at issue here is Vargas Llosa's vision of Peru, and particularly his vision of the indigenous population who make up (estimates vary) around 50% of the total. So this is an important issue.

(Famously, apparently at one point MVLL said he thought Peru should be more like Switzerland. Which was taken as an indication of how out of touch he really was.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I've never come across anything about this yet. I'll have a look. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't help that I spelled the place wrong. Here's a source to give you an idea. I'll look, too. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Kristal, p. 231. It's just a footnote there, but important. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Or here. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And Jean Franco makes the link to Lituma en los Andes. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"double" citations

Ok, this is a particular bugbear of mine, but bear with me... I find it very confusing when there are two citations at the end of a particular sentence or phrase. There are a couple of examples in the lead:

Some consider him to have had a greater international impact and world-wide audience than any other writer of the Latin American Boom.[1][2]

Vargas Llosa contributed to the creation of La Nueva Novela (The New Novel) in Latin America, along with other notable Latin American writers of the time such as Mario Benedetti, Gabriel García Márquez, Miguel Ángel Asturias and João Guimarães Rosa.[3][4]

If both sources are saying the same thing, then I think you should choose just one of them; why have two? And if they are saying different things, you should be making it clearer what each is contributing.

NB there is also a strain of thought that says that the Lead shouldn't need any citations: that that's for the body of the text. I'm inclined to go along with that, so long as the same claims are indeed present in the body (as they should be) and backed up there. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I would like to disagree slightly with Jbmurray here. If both of the sources say the same thing, I think it is excellent idea to include both of them. Indeed, I think it is a good idea to have two or three citations saying the same thing for every statement made in an article because it demonstrates that there is "scholarly consensus" on an issue (something difficult to establish in the humanities). If you have such consensus and can show it in the notes, you can always combine the notes! (Please note that this is an ideal that I and few other people strive for, not something Wikipedia demands.)

• Note: WP:LEAD seems to indicate that the lead should be sourced and most people will ask for sources for particularly controversial claims, such as "first" or "best" claims. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC checklist

FAC checklist based on the featured article criteria:

• Is the prose "engaging, even brilliant, and of professional standard"?

I'm reading through the article today, copy editing as I go. I will post any questions on the talk page. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am now done copy editing. All questions I have are now on the talk page (either in my original list or my new list). I say we go through this list and any new lists that arise today and then call the copy editing good. Thoughts? Awadewit (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Many thanks again for all this! OK, guys: a day and a half before we put this in to FAC! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is the article comprehensive? Does it explain all of the major aspects of the topic?

• I think the "Legacy" section is still weak - it doesn't explain Vargas Llosa's influence or impact on other writers. Awadewit (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are all of the claims supported by citations?

Yes. `Awadewit (talk)

• Are all of the sources reliable?

From what I can tell, yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the IMDB source okay? I've seen in some other articles that it's not. At the same time, it's been there forever on this article and has never been brought up. Just wondering. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, IMDB can be used to source basic facts about a movie. Of course it would be better to have a more reliable source, if it were available. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article present its information neutrally?

• Yes. Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article have a lead that summarizes the article and outlines the sections of the article?

The lead needs a few sentences describing the author's style - that section is not yet represented in the lead.

The lead also needs something about his early life--as per Karanacs's comment above. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article use a consistent citation style?

Yes. Awadewit (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article have useful images (with captions) that have acceptable copyright?

We need fair use rationales for the book cover and the political poster. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that our Russian friend ain't going to like the book cover; what do you reckon? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely one? :( Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added fair use rationales. These are subjective, though, so not everyone will agree with them. What do we think about quote boxes to liven up the article? Awadewit (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a source for the election poster - can someone take care of contacting the uploader and/or finding a source? Awadewit (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message for the uploader, but I am not optimistic on that front. I'll look around the web and see if I can find a source. Awadewit (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have found a source for the poster! Whoo! Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done! As this brought my attention to this section, am I the Russian friend because of the Cyrillic? That's cute. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article stay on topic without going into unnecessary detail?

• Yes. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Does the article follow the MOS?

• All links in the "References" section to databases like EBSCO or JSTOR need to be removed - these are unavailable to most readers. Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm. I'd be prepared to put up a little fight to keep those in! And we did just have at least one article go through FAC without a single complaint on that score... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I can tell you why it is bad idea - some day you'll start to get a trickle and then a flood of complaints on the talk page "the links are all broken" since only a tiny fraction of the public has access to those databases. Awadewit (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we leave them for now? At least until we go to FAN. I still need to go through them. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, otherwise the MOS looks fine to me, but there are always rules I don't know. These can always be easily fixed at FAC, though. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit comflict:) Heh. Next we'll be adding a "trivia" section... C'mon, you allowed me my "selected editions" on the other page. :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If only you knew how wrong that "Selected editions section was. Here is one horrifying example. And now we have set the precedent. "But it's in an FA..." :) Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I also point out that these JSTOR and EBSCO links only work for people logged in at your university? They don't work for me, for example, although I have access to those databases - I just don't have access through your university. The group of people these links work for is tiny indeed. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not the biggest deal in the world, but how many spaces are supposed to follow a full-stop? One or two? There are some irregularities in the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the MOS specifies - I would go with one. Two is an artifact of the days of the typewriter. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I still use two when I write papers to make them seem longer... shhhhhh secrets... I'll go through the article and change them all to one :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit late for this, but for future reference, it doesn't matter. So called French spacing is a matter of editor choice, and only shows up when editing anyway as the wiki software removes the extra space in the article view (see WP:MOS#Spaces after the end of a sentence). EyeSerene^talk 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refine this list, add comments, and strike out when you feel something is complete. Awadewit (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm the article still needs some work to reach FAC. Well, so much for sleep... Lincolnchan98 (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing questions

I will just list these questions as I go - many of the sentences I identified as problematic before still exist. I have crossed off the ones that have improved, but please look at that list as well:

• Vargas Llosa is considered one of Latin America's leading novelists and essayists, and one of the leading authors of his generation. - "leading" is repeated twice - can we find another word to describe him?

  I think this is fixed Acer (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the "Early life" section needs to have the web citation turned into a proper footnote.

  Seems to cite a book now Acer (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• A year later, Vargas Llosa married his first cousin, Patricia Llosa,[19] with whom he had three children: Álvaro Vargas Llosa (born 1966), a writer and editor; Gonzalo (born 1969), a businessman; and Morgana, a photographer. - Could we add a birth year for Morgana?

  It there :) Acer (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Its vitality and adept use of sophisticated literary techniques immediately impressed critics[5] and it won the Spanish Premio de la Crítica. - Since there is no link for this award, could it be briefly described in a phrase for the uninformed reader? Why should they be impressed?

  I created a stub for the prize based on the spanish article (its quite bad though) Acer (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do we have to translate the title of the novels every time? I would say once is enough.

Agreed. I've removed the repetitions.(left one mention in the lead and one in the body each)Acer (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Following the monumental work Conversation in the Cathedral, Vargas Llosa's literary career shifted away from political and societal themes. - Could we choose a more precise word than "societal"?

Changed the wording. Hopefully it's clearer. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa has also written book-length studies of the 19th-century French novelist Gustave Flaubert and of Valencian writer Joanot Martorell. In A Writer's Reality (1991), he discussed his own novels. - This sentence is just kind of hanging around - it has no home.

Got rid of it. It's out of place and without a date or citation, no one can expound on it. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa's fourth major novel, The War of the End of the World (La guerra del fin del mundo), published in 1981, affirmed Vargas Llosa's radical change towards themes like messianism and the irrational behaviour of humans - When did this change happen?

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In accordance to the ambition and accomplishment of the theme, critics have argued that this is one of Vargas Llosa's greatest literary pieces, in comparison to The Green House (La casa verde) - comparison to The Green House is slightly confusing - what is it supposed to convey?

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense to me. Awadewit (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Decided just to keep it simple Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In 2006, Vargas Llosa's wrote The Bad Girl (Travesuras de la niña mala). This novel relates the decades-long obsession of its narrator, a Peruvian expatriate, with a woman with whom he first fell in love when both were teenagers. - Can we say anything else about this novel?

• Above all, as Misha Kokotovic summarizes, the novelist was charged with seeing "indigenous cultures as a 'primitive' obstacle to the full realization of his Western model of modernity" - Please provide a short description of Kokotovic - journalist, scholar, etc.

Fixed! Acer (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• As Franco notes, the experience also inspired Vargas Llosa's subsequent novel, Death in the Andes - This needs a publication date.

Done! Acer (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa included an account of his run for the presidency in a memoir, published in an English-language translation (by Helen Lane) as A Fish in the Water - This needs a publication date.

Done! Acer (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just keep adding as I go. Awadewit (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent stuff, Awadewit! As always, thanks so much! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa frequently uses his writing to challenge the inadequacies of society, such as demoralization and oppression. - Can we be a bit more specific here? "demoralization" and "oppression" or who?

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• In addition to themes such as demoralization and oppression, Vargas Llosa's second novel, The Green House, explores "a denunciation of Peru's basic institutions", dealing with issues of abuse and exploitation - "abuse and exploitation" of what or whom?

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The War of the End of the World is his first major work set outside Peru and is narrated on the basis of past events. - I'm not sure I quite understand what this means.

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Modernism and postmodernism" section is much better! Kudos for trying to define these very difficult terms - your readers will thank you. However, right now it looks like "modernism" means "serious" and "postmodernism" means funny (in broad strokes). Is there anything in the criticism about self-reflexivity or fragmentation? These are usually crucial elements of postmodernism as well and it certainly looks like Vargas Llosa is being self-reflexive.

• right now it looks like "modernism" means "serious" and "postmodernism" means funny Haven't they understood the distinction perfectly?!  ;) (Note to students: close but no cigar, quite.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Interlacing dialogues" section is too short to be a section. Integrate it somewhere or cut it.

Agreed on shortness. I'm doing some research right now in hopes to expand it. It looks like it's kind of a big deal. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps - I'm trying to fix as much as I can myself. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to urge the editors to consider removing the infobox. It is not required. Everything should be added to an article for a reason. Since all of the information in the infobox is in the article and none of it is essential, I would suggest removing it. It is also unsightly and detracts from the picture of Vargas Llosa. However, each page's editors need to make this decision themselves. Here is a good essay on infoboxes. :) We Wikipedians write essays on everything. Awadewit (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

While I won't argue over wether to use an expanded Infobox or not (I can live with the shorter version), I'd like to point out that the argument you provided above doesn't seem to hold for me. Infoboxes are supposed to repeat informotion found in the the body of the article. In fact, if there's one thing that Infoboxes should not do is provide new information. They are supposed to offer in an accessible format information already present in the prose.So, unless your arguing for the removal of infoboxes in general, I don't see how you can use the very objective of their existence as the reason for their removal. I'll concede though that it was getting a little big and even distracting and that ahh... uhh... the present version is somewhat more elegant :) PS: do you mind if I add the cervantes prize back? that seems quite uncontroversial to me, can I please please? :P Acer (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I won't get into a big infobox debate here (we haven't the time), but I would like to point out that only certain kinds of information bear repeating (see hydrogen - that is a useful infobox). Infoboxes work for topics that can be standardized - people cannot be. (Let me give one example: Jane Austen would be listed by "occupation" as a novelist, however she did not "make her living" as a novelist - is that her occupation? It is highly debatable.) Wikipedia works by consensus: is there consensus to add the Cervantes Prize back? What do others think? The problem with fields like "Prizes" and "Influences" is that you can keep adding to them forever - that is why it is best to keep them empty (see Plato). Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My tuppenceworth: I quite like infoboxes, or perhaps I've grown to like them. I do agree, however, that certain fields are more trouble than they're worth. Influences / influencees, particularly. But I'd put the Cervantes Prize back: it does stand out, much as does a Nobel. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Could we make a bigger deal about the prize in the article, then? Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at a couple of Featured Articles of literary characters and I think I'm leaning towards Awadewit's position. From a purely aesthetic point of view, I think infoboxes look tacky. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Lincolnchan98. As far as I'm concerned, you're the boss here. And if you say they're tacky, then tacky they are! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aww just when I got the signature :). Seriously though, if you want to get rid of it, then thats your call as far as I'm concerned Acer (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So I had kept on looking an noticed that in some cases infoboxes work nicely (William Shakespeare and J. R. R. Tolkien). I think what I don't like about the infobox is the picture of MVLL. You can't even see his face and therefor looks awkward framed in a box. Judging from the "Images" discussion below, I doubt we'll be able to find a better picture. :( With all that being said, I really don't care. Whatever works for FAC works for me :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to pull the trigger on this one. Can we get rid of the infobox? The only thing I liked about it was the signature and now that's gone. What does everyone else think? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Vargas Llosa has taught at Queen Mary, University of London and King's College London, both part of the University of London, the Pullman campus of Washington State University, the University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras, Columbia University, Harvard University, Princeton University, Georgetown University, and The City University of New York. - Not sure what to do with this, it's kind of loose Acer (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, but, on the other hand, who wants to try to weave the times he taught through the article? What to do, what to do. Could we somehow find out what he taught and use that to integrate it more seamlessly? Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

I tried looking for more images of him and no luck so far. Commons has another one but its not very good and the other wikis use the msae ones we do. I was able to find an image of his signature here: [2]. As I understand 100% copies of works (suach as a xerox copy) cannot be copyrighted so whoever scanned that text holds no rights over the image. The rights of the text belong to MVLL but I dont think signatures are protected. Is my logic correct? can I cut out and upload just the signature from that image? Acer (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I saw that and wondered about it - is a signature an art work? The content is not unique but the representation most certainly is. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• My thoughts exactly. But after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that allowing signatures to be copyrighted would probraly cause alot of hurdles, seeing as how documents are suposed to be copied mercilessly so perhaps copyright law might exclude them. Ill try to find some information about this, I also rang eccobola Acer (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Turns out I was right and the answer was right here in WP!! Signature#Copyright, we can use it! Acer (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Two "concerns":

• Being public domain and “not under copyright” are not necessarily the same thing. Public domain works, in addition to not being under copyright, are typically defined as those with no additional legal (or other) restrictions for public use. Obviously, this becomes somewhat troublesome when the work in question is a signature (especially someone living), which the public may not really use as they wish.
• There may be some validity to viewpoint set forth in Signature#Copyright. I think, however, it could be successfully argued that signatures would be amongst “designs protected”, as defined in §1301 of Title 17. Whether a signature can be copyrighted is a legitimate question of law; remembering that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, I wouldn’t trust that section unless it were supported by case law (as it is, frankly, I think it’s WP:OR). I don’t recall a court opinion off of the top of my head; if it’s really important, I can check Monday.

All of that being said, however, the image, as you have it, is supported by Wiki precedent (rightly or wrongly) and reflects reasonable considerations and common sense. An ultimately minor issue, there’s no need for fuss. I suppose you could feel free to consider this mindless rambling. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, ЭLСОВВОLД! If you had any thoughts on the other images, too, that would be helpful... It might anticipate issues that will otherwise surely come up at FAC. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one: Image:Fredemo-vargasllosa.jpg needs a verifiable source, per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

What if we don't know the source? The image was uploaded by someone else. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the first step would be to message the uploader. (How can they not know where it came from? Even indicating that they scanned it from a personal collection would be fine.) Otherwise, I'd say images need just as much research and consideration as prose, so searching for a source or an alternative image would be the route to take. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We could stick in some pics of Lima. There are plenty on the Commons. Unfortunately, there are none of any places that are especially associated with MVLL. One of the Leoncio Prado academy might be good. Ah, but hang on... I know someone who lives right round the corner. I could ask her to take some snaps.

And along similar lines, I realized that I know someone who knows the man himself. I've just written to him to see if he has any images, or if he can provide contact info for MVLL. Here's hoping... (And I'm going to do the same re. GGM, btw.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have written to my contacts. No guarantees at all! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful! Trying is all we can ask! Awadewit (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe always nice to have a back door.. PS: if you ever need am image of Graciliano Ramos, his grandouther happnes to be my english lit teacher ;)Acer (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs such an image, as Graciliano Ramos doesn't have one. Could you upload one taken by his grandmother, and licensed under GDFL or released into the public domain? You'll need at least an email as proof that she licensed/released it. Geometry guy 20:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With all of the that effort to get the signature, can't we make it more prominent somewhere? It is kind of lost in the infobox and the rest of the article could use the images! Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and move it around. That one has a transparent background, if you need I can upload one with a white background. Acer (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be excellent! Awadewit (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here you go: MVLL Sig white Acer (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I got a response from my contact. I have good news and bad news, and would appreciate knowing the precise wording required for the next step. He writes (and I've slightly edited the message to remove revealing too much information):

I have never been much for taking photos, so I'm afraid that I do not have any pictorial record of Mario's visits to [place]: shame on me.

I am pretty sure, however, that you will be able to get one from his Peru office. His main administrator and archivist, is Senora Rosario de Bedoya. She can be contacted on [email address]. She is very pleasant.

Maybe also the Carmen Balcells Agency in Barcelona would have photos: they must have. The person who deals with Mario there is Gloria Gutierrez. You'll be able to google her. I would try Rosi first. Write in English or Spanish, giving her all the information. She tends to write back quickly, though Mario is travelling now, so he might not be so easy to locate.

I'm happy to write to this Rosi. I'd like to know, however, the exact formulation of words we should use. Are we asking them to release a photo into the public domain? Or simply to allow us the rights to use an image? Or...??? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough. They need to allow downstream use, including comercial. See Here (see we do have a guide for everything :P ). Anyways the best options would be for it to be released either in the public domain or under a free content license such as the GFDL we use here or one of the CC licenses (needs to allow comercial use). Theres a list of acceptable free content licenses here Acer (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, those links were helpful, thanks! I've written off to his administrator in Lima. Here's hoping! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Update: a response!!! This is what I've just got:

Dear Mr. Beasley-Murray,

Thank you for your e-mail and for your interest in having a better image (or images) of Mr. Mario Vargas Llosa to illustrate the Wikipedia page you and your students are working on. I would suggest to go over his official web page: www.mvargasllosa.com to see if any of the photographs which appear there would be of your interest. Also, should you give me a more clear idea of what kind of images you would like to have, I could look them up for you.

It is also understood that the material I would be able to send you belongs to Mr. Mario Vargas Llosa and that he will retain full property on the photographs or material used by you.

All the best,

Any advice? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem number one: http://www.mvargasllosa.com/ is still down! Heh. Better break that to them... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that she makes that he would retain the rights is correct. Even after releasing the images under a free license, say the GFDL, the author retains his rights which allow him for instance to re-release the content under a different license at a later date. Note however that you cannot backtrack after releasing the content under a given license. To illustrate: MVLL releases picture A of him under the GFDL(allows commercial use). If he wants he can later re-release the same picture A under a different license say CC-by-sa-nc(disallows commercial use). What he cannot do however is claim the original release under the GFDL to be no longer valid. Anybody that gets the image under the original license will be entitled to it use according to the license terms. So if he decides that he doesn’t want, for example, a publishing house to use the original image under the GFDL without paying him, there wont be much he can do. So after saying all this I have two questions.

• 1: Was my explanation above clear?
• 2: Does his administrator understand that? Acer (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:)Thanks for this, Acer. In response...

• 1: The explanation was clear to me.
• 2: I tried to be as clear as possible to the administrator in my original message, so would hope that she also understands. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good. I was worried about the last sentence on the email. I wasn't sure if she understood retain full property on the photographs or material used by you as being the retention of author rights I maentioned above or to mean retain full copyright including the right to charge for use, which is not the case. PS. Since the site is still down it might be easier to ask her to send a picture by email rather than trying to get the site back up which could take a while Acer (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Which variant of English is this article written in? (Prompted by "humour" vs "humor".) Geometry guy 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I've been using Canadian English for the article... if that's even a variant. It's more of a hodge-podge... Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment

"Vargas Llosa has taught at Queen Mary, University of London and King's College London, both part of the University of London, the Pullman campus of Washington State University, the University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras, Columbia University, Harvard University, Princeton University, Georgetown University, and The City University of New York." - What exactly is the point of that long list of names? It doesn't make for interesting reading (I imagine most people will just skip the paragraph rather read each and every name), and its entire meaning can be captured in a sentence like "Vargas Llosa has taught at a number of prominent universities." indopug (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• See the end of my second list of suggestions for one idea. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I like Indopug's suggestion for now. If we find out more about what he taught then we could follow your suggestion, Awadewit. In the meantime we could just move the list to a footnote after "prominent universities". Mike Christie (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the footnote is a good idea. Can someone do this? I have no idea how. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple enough. Done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

While I quite liked the idea to move the list to the notes, I find the sentence that stayed in its place to be just as out of place as the list was. Mind if I try to find a new home for it? Acer (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Checking that a FAC nomination is in the works

I know there was a plan to nominate this for FAC. I'll be watching this for a bit longer, so if someone needs help nominating this let me know. I'd hate to see it miss the deadline. Mike Christie (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still watching, too, and will be up for a few more hours. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In one of the truly most obnoxious internet moments of my life, my household cable went out halfway through fixing the named refs. It just came back (and the Red Sox are still beating the Yankees), so I will resume, but lost a lot of work, need about another half hour. If any needs the article, pls ping me. If it goes out again, I'll go to dialup again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry to have changed the ref naming convention from lower to uppercase, but I realized after I finished that a few had been done that way before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry to respond so late but something came up today and I was unable to work on the article at all. As per Awadewit's comments I think that the only things that need work are the lead and perhaps more in the legacy section about writers he has influenced. Unfortunately I'm not at home right now and won't be for the rest of the evening. So this is my take on things: if you guys think the article is ready for FAC, by all means nominate it. If not, I have no problem with holding off nomination until the article is ready. With all due respect to Jon and the assignment, I'd much prefer a smooth FAC review process than meeting the deadline. I mean for me, this article has consumed more time and effort than warranted by a jump from an A to A+. Pretty much the only thing that will validate the work I've put in so far is seeing this on the front page. Well, that's my opinion; obviously I understand that Wikipedia is a wiki and if others want to put this up for FAC, by all means, go for it. Again, if you think it's ready, go for it. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I defer to the primary contributor. When he thinks it's ready, we'll go. :) Awadewit (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'm certainly happy to let the deadline slide a little. But I will observe that Awadewit, you certainly seem to have convinced others of your FAC philosophy! Heh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Last-minute comments

I think the article is ready for an FA nomination (which doesn't mean it is perfect, but you still get a few days to work on it at FAC). Here are a few little things I noticed that I think should be fixed:

• I'm still worried that the lead does not contain any information about his early life. It should have one or two sentences about information from the Background section to be a good summary of the article.

Tried to address this (hope you don't mind me jumping in!). There may be too much detail now though... EyeSerene^talk 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow I love you jumping in! Please do so more :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't think there's much more I can do though - this article's looking really good! EyeSerene^talk 20:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need information about his early life in the lead. As WP:LEAD states: "summarize the most important points". His early life is not related to his notablity and is thus not one of the "most important points". Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It also says "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article", which is generally taken to mean it should summarize the whole article, including at least a teeny bit of info from each section. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Llosa then moved to Cochabamba, Bolivia, where he spent his childhood" and later "While in Piura, Vargas Llosa attended elementary school at the religious academy Colegio Salesiano" -- this implies that he didn't spend is whole childhood there; it may need a slight wording tweak

Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of Beginning and first major works needs to be a little better sourced within the paragraph. Some of the comments ("evolves into an exciting work of literature", etc) could be considered POV. I'd recommend just adding "According to critic/historian/biographer/etc <so and so name>, ....", and then you are covered on any potential POV claims.

I got rid of the paragraph. in my opinion, it didn't really fit. It was just a bunch of generalized claims with really no substance, or repetition of other parts of the article. If anyone disagrees, feel free to bring it back--but the points and claims will need to definitely be expanded or worked into other parts of the article. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Is there any information about the reception of The Bad Girl? I realize that it is relatively new, but there might be sales figures somewhere?
• "Furthermore, the corruption of the school is a reflection " - corruption of the fictional school or the real one?

FIxed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think this sentence is misplaced in the 2nd paragraph of the Plot/settings section. It needs to go in either the first paragraph of that section or another spot: "Even in these other settings, he continues to write about themes such as oppression and rebellion."

Removed. Did not need to be thereLincolnchan98 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Karanacs! Always appreciated. I'll nominate this article today. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Writers he has influenced

Still looking for names of writers he has influenced. No dice so far. It's pretty tricky searching for "...influenced by MVLL" or "MVLL has influenced...", everything that comes up are people who have influenced him. If anyone can throw out some names of people they know MVLL has influenced, I'll be able to look up information on them and get some reliable sources. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC Submission

Ok I think that the most outstanding things have been corrected. The only weakness of the article is the lack of information on writers he has influenced (see above). Other than that, I think it looks pretty solid. So unless there are any objections, I'm giving it the green light for FA nomination. I don't know how to do that, so someone else can (at this point I don't really care to learn either, just submit it please). Lincolnchan98 (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• I will nominate it on your behalf, then. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Or not - it seems that Jbmurray is doing it. Awadewit (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Touch wood, I hope that went OK! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks friends :) Do I have to say anything or support or anything? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah very nice to see it up for FAC, congrats lincoln! Acer (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lincolnchan98, you and the other editors have to respond to any concerns raised at the FAC - that is all. You should watchlist the FAC page. :) Awadewit (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I'll just repeat something I said over at Talk:The General in His Labyrinth: There'll be work ahead, and you'll have to respond to people's suggestions on the FAC page (you might want to look at the discussion of other Feature Article candidates at WP:FAC). You don't have to do everything that is suggested, though you should consider every suggestion seriously and provide your reasons in a civil and reasonable manner if you choose to go another route. This stage is in part about diplomacy. Other people will also be reacting and commenting. Good luck to us all!  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to !vote at the FAC because I think I've helped too much here, but I have the page watchlisted. If I miss something and you have a question or need editing help ping me on my talk page. I'm really proud of you guys; it is very very rare to bring your first Wiki article ever to FAC in such a short time, and you had the added stress of all the nitpicky FA-Team members looking over your shoulder ;) You've done a great job! Karanacs (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy question

In the sentence Vargas Llosa frequently uses his writing to challenge the inadequacies of society, such as demoralization and oppression of those in political power towards those who challenge this power. shouldn't that be "oppression by those in political power"? Otherwise, it reads as if the challengers are oppressing those in power, which seems unlikely. I'm also not sure oppression is something exactly done "towards" a group, but rather "to" or "on" a group, however I'm not a professional writer and the original wording may be fine. Well, actually, it may all be fine, but it reads a little funny to me. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I think you're right. NB I believe that earlier "demoralization" was "corruption" (which I think explains but doesn't excuse the preposition: it would have gone OK with corruption). But I'm running now so can't fix it... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

English sourcing issues

• Add a source for the Romulo Gallegos award in English: http://www.celarg.org.ve/Ingles/Premio%20Romulo%20Gallegos%201%20Edicion.htm SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was just about to add the English language source for the Rómulo Gallegos awards, but egads! I know it's an official site, from the Venezuelan government, specifically the Ministry of Culture, but it's in horrible English, obviously mistranslated from a Spanish original. A taster: "In this opportunity the prize consisted in one hundred thousand Bolívares (Bs. 100.000), in addition, a medal made in golden and one diploma. It was thirteen jurors, distributed between every Hispanic speech countries, whose referred their verdict to an international panel of judges..." Etc. etc. Is linking to poor translations (however official) really an improvement on linking to (and where necessary, translating from) Spanish sites? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 17:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are you saying it's hard to tell from Hugo's administration that anyone can actually speak and write fluent English in Venezuela? Anyway, I'd say just use both refs in this case, as this one just provides additional verifiability of the award: I'm sure that page will be adequately translated after the year 2012. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming there wont be some sort of coup between now and then (going either way, mind you). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And these are the rest of Sandy's comments, which I've moved over from the FAC discussion, cutting out irrelevancies. I'm reformatting for my convenience, and so I can intersperse comments:

• "29" deals with awards, and are only in Spanish. This should have a translation. I agree and have left an English source on the talk page.

See above for problem with this source. We can add it, of course, but that seems to me to be a step backwards. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I note SandyG's response, and will add accordingly. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

DONE --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The line "they have not spoken to each other in more than 30 years." needs a source, preferably with translation. Second use of "29" (i.e. "Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship") definitely needs a translation. Because this is a WP:BLP and because the text deals with an interpersonal issue, yes, we should have the original text and translation on this in a footnote. I was unable to locate anything in English.

OK, this is from Marcelo Armas, Vargas Llosa, el vicio de escribir. I'm not sure who added this reference right now. Whowever it is: perhaps you could either bring me this text or, easier, add here the relevant sentences in Spanish? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Off to the library now for this one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ufff. This one needed multiple fixes: the page number was wrong, for a start, and it took me ages to find the right one (110, not 101, d'oh!). And we've been quoting from the 1991 edition, when right by it on the shelf is a 2002 edition. I've changed that. This is a useful text, btw. Anyhow. DONE. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say, my ability to comprehend the article has increased by a lot from these changes. Keep up the good work. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."[34]"), an English quote from a Spanish text. Agree that policy says that direct quotes need to show original Spanish text in the footnote.

And this is from Francisco Igartua, Huellas de un destierro. Likewise, could someone either bring me this text or, easier, add here the relevant sentences in Spanish? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is not in the library. Who added this text? I need to have the original Spanish in order to check the translation. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I dont have the text, I belive I found the original quote: "esto es por lo que le hiciste a Patricia en Barcelona". See [3] and [4] both based on Huellas de un destierro. Acer (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm convinced. But we still need the Igartua page reference. So still only half-done. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd drop the quote (and the surrounding references to Igartua) entirely. It adds nothing to the article apart from some unexplained hearsay. It's fine without it:In 1976, Vargas Llosa punched García Márquez in the face in Mexico City at the Palacio de Bellas Artes, ending the friendship. Neither writer has publicly stated the underlying reasons for the quarrel. Yomangani^talk 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I could be convinced by that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll get to these. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For more, I would check the list below. Three of the sources referenced are not actually used in the text, and a few others deal with English quotations from a Spanish source, which is odd. Ottava Rima (talk)

I've dealt with the unreferenced sources. As I'm gradually getting mareado by all the info around, can you just quickly point to the ones with "English from Spanish" problems? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the response to 34 and 84b would be most pertinent for you to look at. The rest were word choice in the English and how it was derived from the Spanish text, especially in things that may controversial (such as incest claims or political opinions). I think the direct quotes were handled under Sandy's comments above. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, 34 was what MVLL might have said to GGM while hitting him in the face in Mexico. That's fixed, see above. 84b is "Written in a realist style, he said of the novel: 'I didn't invent anything that couldn't have happened.'" This is sourced to Williams, Raymond L. (2001), Vargas Llosa: otra historia de un deicidio, p. 270. But it's not in the library at the moment... If one of Team MVLL has a copy of the book, can they give me the relevant Spanish? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And here, in the end I've just replaced the quotation with one stolen from Team The Feast of the Goat. So that's another DONE. Anything else? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible contentious material - 11c dealt with incest. 14 deals with an affair. 42 deals with witnessing prostitutes. 49 is messianic the Spanish word? 52 reception in another country viewing him negatively. 53a more negative criticism. 56 has an English phrase quoted from a Spanish source. Those seem to be the only important ones. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, 56 (Boland and Harvey; citation needs slight correction) isn't a Spanish source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed "from" in the title. My mistake. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Query

criollo–mestizo descent - is that possible? It would be just mestizo descent wouldn't it? Yomangani^talk 00:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange on several levels; would be good to see what the original source is saying. Besides the redundancy, is it referring to the old or modern use of criollo, or was it trying to say one parent was criollo, the other parent mestizo? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That bit was added by an IP. heres the diff. I went through some of his edits and they seemed legit so I don't think it was deliberate vandalism. Acer (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From a quick run through, I don't see anything in the ref that the IP added to support the claim. Morote seems a little confused: he talks about the fact the Vargas Llosa claimed his father was a resentful cholo (which implies his mother may be of pure Spanish descent, though it doesn't explicitly state that). He then says that claim might not be true as Vargas Llosa's father was actually a Limeño, but seems to contradict himself later by saying that all the Peruvians are cholos. It doesn't look a reliable ref to me. Maybe Morote's work, which is used later, or Williams, which is used to cite the rest of that sentence, can clarify. Yomangani^talk 11:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this information really nescessary? It would be important if his descent had inpacted his work or life in some way but the article doesnt say anything about this so I'd be inclined to remove it Acer (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is relevant in light of his work on the Investigatory Commission and the accusations levelled at him as a result, but losing it is preferable to having it wrong. Yomangani^talk 11:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And if you keep the word criollo, that leads to other issues: the old definition would be Spanish descent, but its contemporary use is more akin to homegrown, native, indigenous. Which is intended? It might be better just to get to the point, were his ancestors of Spanish descent, or native-born? What do sources say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks, sorry for getting back so late. So I had a look at the sources I had and according to Williams, ancestors from both sides are from Spain, with the Vargases arriving in the 16th century and the Llosas arriving in the 17th century. I'm guessing there might be some indigenous line mixed in there but for the most part, it looks like he's of Spanish descent. I'm reverting it back to the original "Spanish" descent. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As Per Sandy

• Bach, Caleb (2004), "Mario Vargas Llosa: Author of Limitless Worlds", Americas 56 (2): pp. 38–44,

Is not directly cited in the article according to my search.

• Mujica, Barbara (1995), "Mario Vargas Llosa: In and Out of the Fishbowl", Américas 47 (2),

Is not directly cited in the article according to my search.

• Rossman, Charles (1987), "Mario Vargas Llosa’s Conversation in the Cathedral: Power Politics in a Corrupt Society", Contemporary Literature 28 (4): pp. 493–509,

Is not directed cited in the article according to my search.

• The following list is all uses of Spanish references. Gaps are for convenience in number. This is according to this diff. Comments follow.

1. ^ Boland & Harvey 1988, p. 7 (Acceptable - has an English citation to verify)

3. ^ a b c d e f Williams 2001, p. 17 (a - "parents separated before he was born" Really? What is the detail that says this? Were they divorced? Ever married? Just having problems? The language is way too vague and needs a direct quote. b - "his mother's family, his early years were spent in Bolivia and Peru." What part? Two countries? What time in each? This is extremely vague. c - "born to a middle-class family of criollo–mestizo descent on March 28, 1936, in the Peruvian provincial city of Arequipa.[3] " Middle class? How do we know? Does the source use that? What is the same term in Spanish? How do we know that his family descended from such? d - "who separated a few months before his birth" Same problem as before with separation. The term "separate" is very vague. e - "a year after his parents' divorce, when his maternal grandfather was named honorary consul for Peru in Bolivia.[3] " Brings up question about the language of "separate" before and what is the "honorary consul" line? Is that the real title? I don't remember the term "honorary" as being Spanish, so I doubt it. f "Vargas Llosa then moved to Cochabamba, Bolivia, where he spent the first years of his childhood" Seems a little vague, but wont say anything that is inflammatory, unless living in such a place can be seen as a discredit.

4. ^ a b c Williams 2001, p. 24 (b "As a child Vargas Llosa was led to believe that his father had died" Thats a strong claim and needs a direct citation. c "Vargas Llosa's maternal grandfather obtained an important diplomatic post in the Peruvian coastal city of Piura and the entire family returned to Peru" Not so bad, but "entire family" can mean many things. )

5. ^ Williams 2001, p. 31 ("Following his parents' reconciliation " Probably needs a direct citation to verify such a thing, especially in regards to claims that he was lied to about his parents.)

8. ^ Williams 2001, p. 39 ("later enrolled at university to study law and literature.[8]" Law and literature? Is that his words? Someone else's opinion? Whats the quote? Where is the information coming from?)

9. ^ Williams 2001, p. 44 ("on graduation received a scholarship to study in Spain" Rather vague. Who, what, where, why, when, etc. )

10. ^ The first year given is the original publication date; the second is the year of English publication. ("did not begin writing prolifically until his move to Paris in 1960, rising to fame with novels " No source is provided for that line)

11. ^ a b c Williams 2001, p. 54 (a Might not be a problem, but a divorce is something that should have some extra verifiability behind it. c "A year later, Vargas Llosa married his first cousin, Patricia Llosa,[11]" Claims of incest need an English source or a translated source. It is considered taboo in many countries, especially English speaking countries.

12. ^ a b Shaw 1973, p. 431 (a "along with other notable Latin American writers of the time such as Mario Benedetti, Gabriel García Márquez, Miguel Ángel Asturias and João Guimarães Rosa.[12][13]" I'm sure there can be some English sources for this. At least one here would reinforce the two Spanish. I would check the pages of those authors and cite what they cite for such information b "later as a book" is probably acceptable without any further information)

13. ^ a b Lamb 1971, p. 102 (a See "a" in 12 b "is an important contributor to La Nueva Novela (The New Novel) in Latin America" This is an important claim and would need English verifiability)

14. ^ Morote 1998, p. 14 ("Shortly after Mario's birth, his father revealed that he was having an affair with a German woman; consequently, Mario has two younger half-brothers: Enrique and Ernesto Vargas.[14]" An affair should probably have direct translated for the citation to the claim)

15. ^ Morote 1998, pp. 6–7 ("His maternal family, the Llosas, were sustained by his grandfather, who also managed a cotton farm" Honorary consul paid nothing? This probably needs a direct citation to clear up the confusion)

16. ^ a b Williams 2001, p. 30 (Neither of these are probably contentious enough or confusing enough to warrant translation)

17. ^ Williams 2001, p. 31 ("His parents re-established their relationship and lived in Magdalena del Mar, a middle-class Lima suburb, during his teenage years." Vague enough to require a direct citation)

18. ^ Williams 2001, p. 32 (Direct dates, not really contentious)

20. ^ Williams 2001, p. 34 ("witnessed the theatrical performance of his first dramatic work, La huida del inca" That probably needs a translated citation to prove that its the "first")

21. ^ Williams 2001, p. 39 ("to study law and literature" Same as above, who is the source of this information - himself or outsiders?)

22. ^ The newspapers were El Mercurio Peruano and El Comercio. Castro-Klarén 1990, p. 21 (Should be acceptable)

23. ^ Williams 2001, p. 44 ("he received a scholarship to study at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid in Spain" For what, for why, etc. This should probably have a translated citation so people can understand what the text says on the matter)

24. ^ a b Williams 2001, p. 45 (a "moved to France under the impression that he would receive a scholarship to study there; however, after he arrived in Paris he learned that it would not materialize" Impressions seem to be something that requires a translated citation. b "Despite Mario and Julia's poor economic status" Calling someone "poor" would probably warrant a translation of the citation.)

29. ^ a b Armas 1991, p. 101 (a An award should be okay to talk about. b "ending the friendship" Such a thing is contentious and would need a direct line citation)

I stopped here because this is a lot for the time being. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-- List 2.

34. ^ Igartua 1991 ("leaving him on the floor, Vargas Llosa said: "That’s for what you did to Patricia in Barcelona."" A direct quote. Originally in Spanish? Or in English?)

35.

36. ^ Rodrigo Moya explores plausible reasons for the friendship's dissolution in an essay titled "The terrific story of a black eye." (Should be fine)

42. ^ Setti 1989, p. 65 ("Vargas Llosa's motivation to write the novel came from actually witnessing prostitutes hired by the Peruvian Army and brought to serve soldiers in the jungle" - The words "motivation", "witnessing", and "prostitutes" would individual key me to requesting Spanish/English citation, and together, well, :) )

43. ^ a b c d Williams 2001, p. 60 (a "focused primarily on his occupation as a writer" Not a major claim, but the word "primarily" is a contentious word in general. However, "he still took time to pursue other endeavors." is vague. What other endeavors are mentioned by the source? Does the source summarize them? What part of it tipped you off to writing this line? b co-directed a movie shouldn't be a problem, but if thats true, wouldn't there be an English version that says the same? Perhaps something on the movie itself? c "that unsuccessful production, he was elected" A source to show how the movie was unsuccessful would be nice. Also, if he was elected to an international position in an organization, there should be some sources on English out there for it. d "His responsibilities as a writer and lecturer have allowed him to travel frequently and led to settings for his novels in regions outside of Peru" Does the source say this, or does it mention the places he traveled and those were included as settings? )

44. ^ Williams 2001, pp. 60–61 ("constantly travelled to speak at conferences organized by a number of internationally renowned institutions, such as the University of Jerusalem and the University of Cambridge" If he went to these places, there should be an English source that says the same thing and could be included with the Williams citation.)

49. ^ Campos 1981, p. 299 ("a radical change in Vargas Llosa's style towards themes like messianism and the irrational behaviour of humans" the phrase "radical change" tips off that this sentence might need a direct translated citation to remove the possibility of contention)

52. ^ Setti 1989, p. 46 ("poorly received because a foreigner was writing about a Brazilian theme" seems like it could be contentious with the implied racism.)

53. ^ a b Setti 1989, p. 42(a "criticized as revolutionary and anti-socialist." A rather blanket statement. Doesn't seem that problematic. b"this book is his favorite and was his most difficult accomplishment" Direct quote from the author and a translation would be better suited to provide this point_

56. ^ Boland 1988, p. 164 ("but rather a "literary exorcism" of Vargas Llosa's own experiences during the commissio" Direct quote from a Spanish source)

57. ^ a b c d Williams 2001, p. 267 (a "According to Williams, it is Vargas Llosa's most complete " Same problem as above, directing attributing without the Spanish to verify. b A very lengthy sentence for that citation but seems to deal mostly with plot summary that wouldn't be that contentious. c "has had a significant impact on the Latin American world" The rationale behind that choice of words would be explained with a Spanish/English citation. d "based on the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo," Probably not so contentious, but I don't really know. Its a political thing in an area that I am unfamiliar with.)

58. ^ Williams 2001, p. 268 ("book quickly received positive reviews" Not contentious really, but it would be nice to have examples)

60. ^ Setti 1989, p. 140 ("was later seduced by communist ideals" The word "seduced" tips me off here)

61. ^ Setti 1989, p. 141 ("Gradually, Vargas Llosa realized that" According to who? Llosa? The author? )

62. ^ Setti 1989, p. 142 (Doesn't seem very contentious, but the letter should have had quite a bit of recognition in the US with the news here always following events with Cuba, no?)

63. ^ Morote 1998, p. 234 ("identified himself with right-wing political ideologies" Quote from him, perhaps? What is the grounds for this?)

64. ^ Armas 1991, p. 109 (This is the secondary link to the above and would have the same issues)

72. ^ a b Boland & Harvey 1988, p. 8 (a "he helped form and soon became a leader" Shouldn't be a problem. b "to form the tripartite center-right coalition known" Same.)

75. ^ Williams 2001, p. 82 ("has focused mainly on his writing, with only an occasional political" What is the evidence backing up this? I bet the source is a little long winded on the matter, so the words giving you this interpretation may be necessary)

76. ^ a b c Williams 2001, p. 83 (a "has mainly lived in London since" Not really contentious, but the use of the term "mainly" makes the sentence a tad vague. b "but he also enjoys vacationing there" Enjoys according to? c "he was elected a member of th" Not really contentious)

77. ^ Escritor Mario Vargas Llosa retira su apoyo al PP y pide el voto para UPyD (Spanish). Terra Actualidad. Retrieved on 2008-03-22. ("His political ideologies appear in the book" Not really contentious if you explain in what form the ideas appeared as.)

80. ^ Morote 1998, pp. 66–67 ("One of the main themes he has explored in his writing" Not really contentious.)

84. ^ a b Williams 2001, p. 270 (a "in preparation for this novel, Vargas Llosa did an intrusive and comprehensive study of Dominican Republic" The words "intrusive" and "comprehensive" may be contentious. b "Written in a realist style, he said of the novel: "I didn't invent anything that couldn't have happened."" Was this said in English or Spanish? If Spanish, it needs the original.

112. ^ Williams 2001, p. 84 (a "books and stories, and, for decades, he has been a voice for Latin American literature" Not really contentious, but the "voice for Latin America" might be contentious)

Here is the list of the rest of the Spanish citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revert

Ottava Rima, your post introduced a very strange duplication and deletion of text; I'm sure it was inadvertent, but it erased text of mine and introduced three duplicate sections, so I reverted back to before you post and then restored your post (after I made a trip to Village Pump technical, claiming Wiki software had eaten my post :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely crazy. Wikipedia doesn't seem to appreciate lots of additions at once. C'est la Wiki? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unused references

References that are currently unused, but presumably were used in a previous version of this article. I'm putting them here in case we want to re-use them:

• Bach, Caleb (2004), "Mario Vargas Llosa: Author of Limitless Worlds", Americas, 56 (2): pp. 38–44, retrieved 2008-04-06 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). (Subscription required to access online.)
• Mujica, Barbara (1995), "Mario Vargas Llosa: In and Out of the Fishbowl", Américas, 47 (2), retrieved 2008-04-09 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help). (Subscription required to access online.)
• Rossman, Charles (1987), "Mario Vargas Llosa's Conversation in the Cathedral: Power Politics in a Corrupt Society", Contemporary Literature, 28 (4): pp. 493–509, retrieved 2008-04-06 {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help). (Subscription required to access online.)

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tracking down the missing page no

The missing Igartua page no text was not in the GA version (March 26), but was in the PR version, so it was added sometime in between. I'm stepping through the diffs now, but someone else may find it before I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo, Mike Christie found it, here; can someone get that info from Tomasso ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've written to him. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I really think you'd be better dropping the quote entirely. Unless I'm missing something, it is just a second-hand account of some gossip that may or may not be connected to the falling out. The important thing in the article is that they argued and haven't spoken since, not the ins and outs of their personal lives. Yomangani^talk 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree; there's already another source, so the text can be rewritten from that source to avoid mention of Igartua. He's not that important. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at that section more closely, I agree that the Iguarta quotation is insignificant and even somewhat biased (friend of MVLL). I think the most important piece of information is there and cited: "Neither writer has publicly stated the underlying reasons for the quarrel." Lincolnchan98 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

references

Why is there a space between the ISBN and the final dot in the references? Also, not all references have this final dot. Randomblue (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no space, in fact, in the code. I guess the citation template must add a space? Anyhow, there's nothing that can be done about that, short of messing with the template. The inconsistency, however, has been fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

linking

Inconsistent linking between "Latin America's" and "Gustave Flaubert's". (and other, such as "Virginia Woolf's") Randomblue (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

dots

"[. . . and]" is horrible. Check MOS, I think it recommends ... but not sure. Randomblue (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the MOS (a more precise reference would be good), but normal academic style (e.g. the MLA) recommends ". . ." for ellipses. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the square brackets (because I'm not entirely sure which part you see as horrible) are simply to show that the ellipsis is not in the original. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)