Talk:Mario Vargas Llosa/Archive 1

First comment
This page needs more info on The Tempation of the Impossible. It's a powerful piece.

Relative in Hollywood
Isn't a brother or nephew a film director of a certain fame in Hollywood? --Error 29 June 2005 00:09 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Lucho (Luis) Llosa, director of Anaconda?
 * I know the man, but I'm not sure if he has any ties to Vargas Llosa. If you mean him, I'll ask his children. Maybe it's someone else.::I just confirmed that. Luis Llosa is the cousin AND brother-in-law of Vargas Llosa, since Vargas Llosa married his own cousin

Palomeno
Are you sure it is Palomeno and not Palomino? --Error 29 June 2005 00:09 (UTC)

Finding Mario Vargas Llosa in Wikipedia
It seems a bit too difficult to find this article with the search engine.

I have redirected Mario Vargas to Mario Vargas Llosa.

Now, Vargas is redirected to Vargas State; I added a link from Vargas State to here, but still it might be preferrable to change Vargas into a disambiguation page (which will link both to Vargas State, and to Mario Vargas Llosa). -- Yaar Hever 30 June 2005

Vargas Llosa's bibliography
Could his book titles not be in their original form -in spanish?

The english translation could be placed in parenthesis.

Total novel
Chris k 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) I have removed the phrase "and its reflection on the different levels of perceptual reality" as I have no clue what that is supposed to mean.

Not a GA (yet)
I've moved this article down to B status. In order for it to reach GA, it must go through the nomination process here. Wrad (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out the guideline on lead sections: it's one of WP's more useful ones. Geometry guy 10:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fleshed out the lead, based on the current article, but this is just an attempt by someone, who knows nothing about the subject, to precis the rest of the article. My attempt needs much improvement, but I hope it gives the idea. Also the article needs to cite its sources. Its not enough to give a list of references: readers need to know which references support which assertions! Geometry guy 21:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional information on Vargas Llosa
For a class project, we're looking to significantly improve this article so that it achieves Featured Article status. Any additional information with verifiable and reliable sources would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! A link to our project can be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabel-clase (talk • contribs) 21:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem and the FA-Team
To assist WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem in its drive to bring this article to Featured status, a number of experienced editors from the FA-Team have volunteered their editing services to the project. To see which editors are watching this article, click here.

You can contact a specific editor directly by leaving a message on their talk page, or more generally by posting a message here. To do this, click the '+' tab at the top of the page and enter a subject title, and your message, in the editing windows that will appear. Don't forget to finish off by typing four tildes ( ~ ) to automatically add your signature; you need to be logged in for this to work properly.

We're all really enthusiastic about this project, and looking forward to working with you. All the best, The FA-Team 11:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where to start
Hi, I'm also working on this article for the SPAN312 class project. Now I'm 100% new to Wikipedia, so I'm going to need lots of help. I have a question for the FA-Team: where would be a good place to start in turning this into a Featured Article status? There's already a lot of information on the page--which I don't know is an advantage or disadvantage compared to pages that have just been created. As a group we were thinking of finding sources for the material that's already present. What do you guys think? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are pretty lucky that this is a decent article already, and you have the right plan for it. Generally, to create a Featured Article, you first have to gather a ton of information, then you have to write it down with citations, then you have to make it look and sound pretty.  The first two parts&mdash;gathering the information and writing it down with citations&mdash;is really the hard part.  Luckily for you, part of that is already done for you!
 * So, first, verify the information that is already here. By looking through sources to find citations for this info, you will probably discover more information that should also go into the article.  If you are citing information as you find it, you can add a  tag at the end of a sentence to remind yourself that you haven't cited this particular fact. (I have cited this sentence. I have not cited this sentence.  I've cited this one. )
 * As you find more information, add it into the article. Once you are done with your research (or as you feel you are getting close), it will be time to look at everything you have, make sure that the article is structured properly, and start work on the copyediting and Manual of Style fixes.  You may also discover that some of the information in this article can't be verified, and then you'll want to pull it out of the article.  There are a few of us watching this page, and we'll try to give pointers as you start citing your sources.  If you have any questions, just ask! Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Distribution of Work
Hey Isabel and Tomasso, so I think it's a good idea if each of us takes a couple of sections to revise. We can start by looking for sources/references for the current material. There are 8 sections as of now: the lead paragraph, Early Life, Rise to Success, Later Works, Genre and Style, Literary Criticism, Political Involvement, Family. I'll take the lead paragraph, Early Life and Family sections. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I noticed that this website was recently added as a source: http://www.geocities.com/wongcampos/bio.html Please note that geocities sites are not considered a reliable sources because anyone can write anything. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review
I'm still not 100% sure how the Wikipedia review process works, but I was thinking that March 10th would be a good tentative date to submit this article for Good Article Review. That way we'll still have some time to get some feedback and make some changes before the Featured Article Review deadline. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lincoln, that sounds like a good plan, if perhaps a little ambitious still. You should take a look at how things are moving on El Señor Presidente, and the to do list on the talk page.  Perhaps one of the FA team can suggest a "to-do" list for this article, like the very helpful one suggested over there?  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 06:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I had a look at El Señor Presidente talk page and was pretty impressed by the to-do list that they had. I mean, it even had a picture of a clipboard with a check-mark on it. How awesome is that? If a member of the the FA Team (or anyone else) could provide a to-do list of what they feel needs to be done before submission, it would be greatly appreciated. Also, I'm unclear at the difference between Peer Review and Featured/Good Article Review. I was under the impression that Featured/Good Article Reviews were done be peers. And how long do Peer Reviews take? I'm so confused... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnchan98 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Peer review is a way to get feedback from others before you go to GA and FA. Since the FA team is here to help, I don't think you'll need to go to Peer Review.  I'll take a look at this article and post a list of suggestions soon.   Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a todo at the top for you, with my comments. I am not very familiar with the topic, so my comments are mostly general.  Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Karanacs! That to-do list is pretty awesome. I'll get my group to start going through that list right away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincolnchan98 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Lincoln, I can see why you might be confused: all wikipedia reviews are undertaken by "peers." There's no panel of expert judges here.  But there is a difference between 1) just asking people to come have a look at the article and to say what they think in general ("peer review"); 2) asking someone specifically to see if it meets the criteria for a "good article" ("Good article review"); and 3) asking the community whether or not it meets the criteria to be one of the best article in wikipedia ("Feature Article review").  All of these are reviews, undertaken by other editors (peers), but for somewhat different purposes.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review could be helpful. It could be done at the same time as a GA nom. Peer review is aimed at generating suggestions for improving the article, whereas GA reviews the state of the article against certain criteria. Sometimes you get very little feedback in a GA review. Sometimes you get no feedback in a peer review. I would suggest nominating this article for peer review, GA or both, very soon. Geometry guy 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't look like this article is ready for good article nomination quite yet. I think our top priority is to follow the to-do list provided by Karanacs, mainly finding more citations, dipping into the Further Reading, and expanding the part about Vargas Llosa "considered to have more of a continued international impact and world-wide audience than any other writer from the Latin American Boom." In addition to that, I definitely think that Later Works, Genre and Style and Literary Criticism sections need to be expanded. Tommaso and Isabel, I'm going to suggest that each of us take 2 books from the Further Reading section and use those as our main resources to expand this article. After we do that, we'll get one of the nice FA people to do a pretty copyedit for us.


 * Dividing up the work in this way seems very helpful. Here's the "further reading" list, which I've moved from the article itself where it isn't exactly doing very much at present, as none of the works are referenced there:


 * * Mario Vargas Llosa and the persistence of memory / Miguel Ángel Zapata, 2006
 * * Vargas Llosa's fiction & the demons of politics / Köllmann, Sabine, 2002
 * * A storyteller: Mario Vargas Llosa between civilization and barbarism / Muñoz, Braulio, 2000
 * * Temptation of the word: the novels of Mario Vargas Llosa / Kristal, Efraín, 1999
 * * Specular narratives: critical perspectives on Carlos Fuentes, Juan Goytisolo, Mario Vargas Llosa / Roy Boland, 1997
 * * A novelist who feeds on social carrion: Mario Vargas Llosa / Angvik, Birger, 1997
 * * Vargas Llosa among the Postmodernists / Booker, M. Keith, 1994
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa: Oedipus and the 'papa' state / Boland, Roy Charles, 1990
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa: critical essays on characterization / Kerr, R. A., 1990
 * * Understanding Mario Vargas Llosa / Castro-Klarén, Sara, 1990
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa: from Pantaleón y las visitadoras to Elogio de la madrastra / Roy Boland, 1988
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa / Raymond L Williams, 1986
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa (Twayne's World Authors Series) / Dick Gerdes, 1985
 * * From Lima to Leticia: the Peruvian novels of Mario Vargas Llosa / Marvin A Lewis, 1983
 * * Alchemy of a hero: a comparative study of the works of Alejo Carpentier and Mario Vargas Llosa / Bobs M Tusa, 1983
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa: a collection of critical essays / Charles Rossman, 1978
 * * Mario Vargas Llosa's pursuit of the total novel / Luis A Diez, 1970


 * --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Literary Prizes and Distinctions
I've come across a few lists of the different awards Vargas Llosa has received over the years. Would it be appropriate to include these lists in the article? Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. Add them, or at least a selection so that they don't overwhelm the article!  But again, nothing is more important than information from reliable sources about Vargas Llosa's career and life. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 10:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So I put in a list of awards. I'm not sure how to do the format, so I just kind of copied the List of Works section. If someone knows a better way, by all means change it. I'm also not sure how to cite the list.Lincolnchan98 (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Placement of citations
There are four different sources cited for the information that "One of his more recent novels (The Road to Paradise (2003)) is set largely in France and Tahiti." This is either overkill, or (as I suspect) the result of placing citations in the wrong places. A citation should go at the end of the sentence to which it refers. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you a cite a sentence that information from multiple pages or sources?
 * It might help if you gave an example. But the basic rule is that you should make it clear what information comes from which source.  If you bunch references together, then that's no longer clear.  (NB this, as so much else, applies to term paper as much as to wikipedia.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to find an example from the article itself but I'm too lazy. Here's a made up one. Which is the correct way to cite this?
 * Dogs like to eat cats and dog-food. or Dogs like to eat cats and dog-food.
 * This is assuming that both pieces of information were gathered from two different sources.
 * P.S. Geez Jon, don't you ever sleep?


 * The best thing in this case would be to split the material up into two sentences. In fact, they'd look something like this, as you should also make clear in the prose itself the source of the citations and their qualifications:  "One expert on canines, Lincoln, observes that dogs like to eat cats.  But Jon, who has also worked for years on this topic, adds that they are equally satisfied with dog-food.{(fact}}"  (Again, the same goes with term papers etc.)  Meanwhile, you, too: get to bed!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 11:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Structure
This article is moving along, which is grand. I wonder about the structure. At the moment biography and the discussion of his work are mixed up rather. It might be good to have a section "Major works" that is separate from the biography. Perhaps like Miguel Ángel Asturias (though note that there too the structure needs to be tightened). And then you'd have a paragraph each on, say, La ciudad y los perros, Conversación en la catedral, and whatever. And then perhaps a paragraph each on (I dunno) comic works (Pantaleon, Aunt Julia) and another on shorter, less memorable titles (Palomino Molero). I'm not entirely sure, which is why I haven't gone ahead and done it. But you guys should have a think about it. At the moment, there's much more on Vargas Llosa's politics than on this literature. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with "Harvnb" references
One for someone from the FA-Team, no doubt... I wonder why none of the "Harvnb" references are working. When you click on the footnote, they should highlight the relevant reference from the References list, no? But this isn't happening, with any of the notes I tried. Any idea what we're doing wrong here? Thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 02:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, perhaps it's because we're mainly using the "cite book" and "cite journal" templates, rather than the "citation" one? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Fixed: see discussion below. Geometry guy 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More on Sources
There have been a number of good sources added, which is great. (More suggestions can be found up above, on this page.)

Meanwhile, at the same time, it might be good to replace bad sources, of which there are still a bunch on this page. I'm specifically thinking of the following:


 * "Biographical Sketch". Mario Vargas Llosa Papers. Princeton University Library. (currently note #1, referenced twice in the article)
 * "Biografía." sololiteratura.com. (currently note #4, referenced three times in the article)
 * "Biografía." www.mundolatino.org. (currently note #9, referenced four times in the article)
 * "Encyclopedia of World Biography on Mario Vargas Llosa". www.bookrags.com. (currently note #10, referenced three times in the article)
 * "Mario Vargas Llosa (1936-)" Authors' Calendar. www.kirjasto.sci.fi. (currently note #12, referenced six times in the article)
 * "Vargas Llosa, Mario". The Columbia Encyclopedia. www.bartleby.com. (currently note #13, referenced once in the article)

These are all weak sources, and they account for 19 of the citations in the article at present. No doubt the information that they reference needs to be cited; but we need to ensure that these are from reliable sources. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * POOF* All gone! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the following sources were hanging on to the end of the first paragraph in the "Genre and style" section. They seem to have nothing to do with that paragraph. It looks as though they were all added at the beginning of February. They're so-so sources (mostly journalistic), but I put them here in case they come in handy. Still, you should be going after scholarly books and articles on the whole.

.

Article on the feud between Mario Vargas Llosa and García Márquez.

--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, in fact these were originally in "external links." They have the 2008 "accessed date" only thanks to User:Geometry guy's edit here.  For what it's worth.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Access dates are useful if only to indicate that the link worked once (on the date indicated). Ideally they also document that the information in the article comes from the version of the website on the date indicated. Of course, they are no substitute for replacing weak sources by more reliable ones! Geometry guy 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving along!
This article is really moving along in leaps and bounds. A whole bunch of decent sources are going in there, and the literary sections are stronger than ever. Well done to you all! (And now I'm really off to bed.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 09:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to lie, this wikipedia editing stuff gets pretty addictive...and maybe...*cough* fun? *cough* Or maybe I'm just delusional since it's 3 am. Good night.Lincolnchan98 (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It sure is (reply to both!). Sorry I've not been following this one closely recently. Anyway, I notice you're using Harvnb to format the notes. This works best in conjunction with citation for the references, instead of cite book, cite journal and cite web, because then you get cool wikilinks from the footnote to the reference. I've demonstrated this on Morote. I'll convert the rest at some point if no one objects (or beats me to it!) Geometry guy 12:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have belatedly figured this out. (The harvnb stuff.)  I like those cool wikilinks!  You would be more than welcome to do that conversion.  (The same goes for most of the other WP:MMM articles.)  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 16:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1959
There's some apparent contradiction in the "Early life" section. Where did MVLL move in 1959: Spain or France? Can we clear this up? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed Lincolnchan98 (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

How Close to GA?
Once again, let me say that this article is really moving, thanks in large part to a heroic effort on Lincoln's part to add decent sources. The obvious blot on the copybook (to me) is the section on legacy, etc. But beyond that, I'm not so sure. I wonder if someone from the FA-Team might advise as to what should be done now before submitting to Good Article Review. My feeling is that this article is on the verge. But if I'm wrong, it would also be good to know! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fix the references! You'll have to combine all the 'references to one page' and 'references to one book / source' together by using the code "ref name=???" Having a long list of different ref #s all citing the same source is disliked. See Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are two sentences that need a citation.
 * Vargas Llosa has long been considered one of the most important of twentieth-century Latin American writers.
 * One of his more recent novels (The Road to Paradise (2003)) is set largely in France and Tahiti.
 * These need to be fixed somehow before GA nomination. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source for 'The Road to Paradise being set in France and Tahiti is the novel itself, as anyone who consults the novel can easily verify; why would further citation be needed?. Plazak (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

HELP PLEASE
Hi everyone,

In the past week we've been loading up this article with lots of sourced material. We think that this article has come a long way since before our project started. What we're in desperate need of, either from a helpful FA-Team member or a caring Wikipedia citizen, is a thorough copy-edit. We're all extremely new to Wikipedia and are highly unfamiliar with the accepted format for articles. We are hoping to submit this for GA nomination soon, and would greatly appreciate your help. Lincolnchan98 (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll try to get to copy-editing tomorrow. There have indeed been an amazing amount of new sourced material added.  There's no doubt that this article has come a long, long way.  Well done!  I think this is very, very close to a GA nomination, and hope that we can nominate it tomorrow or perhaps the day after.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! This is the first time I've looked at this article since the MMM took it on... and what an incredible job you've done! I'm truly impressed. You're right about the copyedit ), but to be honest I'd say go ahead with the GA nomination. It may take a while to get to review, and there's really not much else that needs doing. Great job! EyeSerene talk 08:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, will do! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I spell checked the whole thing and there was only one typo in the whole article... Anyway if I can make a suggestion, perhaps it would be best to get rid of the Family section altogether and include it in the Early life and initial success or maybe even in the intro, it only has three lines really, since the bit about he being hospitalized doesn't really belong there. PS: I'll do a thorough Read-through later today. Acer (talk) 09:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I just removed the bit bellow from the article, I don't think it fits anywhere and it's probrably of minor importance:


 * In January 2008, the Peruvian newspaper El Comercio reported that Vargas Llosa had recently been hospitalized with a cardiac :condition. He left the hospital on January 19, with little public comment on his hospitalization, while Peruvian news sources :reported that he was out of danger and fully recovered. :"Peruvian author Mario Vargas Llosa briefly hospitalized". AFP.  Jan 19, 2008.  afp.google.com 


 * If anybody can find a home for it feel free to put it back in (the ref is disabled) Acer (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok boys and girls I've copy-edited the article (moved things around, added headers, wikilinks, quotation, etc - its all in the edit summaries) and my opinion is that this is a solid piece for GA, I don't think any further major changes are going to be needed before the assesment. Lets wait for the reviewers comments and then we'll adress them. Also I'd like to second EyeSerene's comments, you've done a fantastic job, the article is much improved indeed, keep it up :) Acer (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow Acer, thanks a ton! Well, looks like it's time to play the waiting game... Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

honorary what?
Regarding this diff], presumably what's actually meant is honorary consul. But perhaps someone can check. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Its indeed consul as I had suspected, Britannica to the rescue! :) Acer (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)