Talk:Sandra Cisneros/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi there, I am reviewing this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have begun a list below of the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts, which I am aware this article will make (I reviewed one of these last year, I think the project as a whole is great by the way). Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is a pretty good 6/10 (I'm British, so no grade inflation!). I have some improvements suggested below.
 * "which often made her feel like the odd one out," is not the most encyclopedic way to put it. Try "alienated", "isolated" or better yet use a quote. ✅
 * "she was considered the odd number in a set of men" - by whom? ✅

what i meant to say is that she had considered herself the odd number in a set of men.
 * "to go to College" - which college? If you don't know, lose the capital C. ✅
 * "However, after failing classes due to a lack of interest, Alfredo ran away to the United States to escape his father's wrath" - this is an odd sentence. I'm not sure if "lack of interest" is really precise enough here, who says he wasn't interested and what was he not interested in. It doesn't have to be lengthy, just a little clearer (and was it interest or effort that was the problem, an odd distinction I know, but one that I feel will help the article). Also wrath is a little biblical, try anger instead. ✅

lack of interest is exactly what cisneros said about her father in an interview so i dont think its not precise. and since she said lack of interest i dont think that effort was the problem.
 * Ah, its from a quote. You should put the exact quote marks and state who said it to give the comment the correct context.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ok i put in ..."what cisneros called his "lack of interest" hopefully thats betterValerie voikin (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the short paragraph that begins "Cisneros’s one strong female influence was" with the one above (just join them up). They are on related topics and the paragraph is a little stubby on its own. ✅
 * "who passed away due to complications with diabetes in 2004" - not really about Cisneros so can probably be removed.✅
 * I put this in in response to another reviewer who wanted me to explain why this award, in her name, is given to writers who are ill or in need of healing. But this can be removed if it makes sense without this explanation.Heathermary (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary
 * The problem is that since she isn't linked or otherwise introduced, a reader has no idea who she is: is she another writer? A favourite aunt? Clarify what relationship she had with Cisneros and make sure you spell the name consistently (accents and all).--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)✅
 * "the Casa Azul in San Antonio" - "the" Casa Azul? Is this a famous place? ✅
 * "As Madsen and Saldívar have described," - who? This kind of academic essay style writing is not really appropriate for Wikipedia, if you are going to quote a critic or commentator then introduce them the first time they appear (And link them if possible) e.g. "As critics Deborah Madsen and Ramon Saldívar have described,". Likewise with "Critics such as Doyle and Cruz" and "Many theorists, including Doyle, Wyatt, Perez and Candelaria," ✅

I'm pretty sure I caught all of the critics/theorists, introduced them as such, and added first names. Seto58 (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * "La Llorona," - who? Is she introduced elsewhere and I missed it? Which story is she from?

I'm not sure of the problem here. I introduce la Llorona as a figure "who derives from a centuries-old Mexican/Southwestern folktale." Seto58 (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * "The three Mothers come out most clearly in Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories" - which three mothers? and clarify "come out".

By "Mothers" I was referring to the idea of Anzaldua mentioned earlier in the passage that la Virgen de Guadalupe, la Malinche and la LLorona are the three "Mothers" of Mexico. I added quotation marks and changed this sentence to: "The three "Mothers" are most clearly seen in..." Do I need to refer more explicitly back to Anzaldua? Seto58 (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * No, either it has improves since I reviewed it or I simply missed it before but it is certainly clear enough now. Good job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Quite a few of the references are incomplete.
 * Would you be able to give an example of the incomplete references?Heathermary (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary
 * Most of these have been addressed since I completed the review, but there are still a couple with question marks instead of page numbers.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These have now been filled in, I'm sorry that I did not realizze that they were not there originally. Heathermary (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The biography leaps rather spectaculaly from her teacher at age eleven to graduating from university. What about her teenage and student years? (Some of this appears in the Voice of the People section below.) ✅
 * There seems to be little discussion of the chronological progress of her novels following the publication of The House on Mango Street. How were these written? Is there any information on the process or events in her life that effected her writing? ✅

Heathermary has expanded "Later life and career" to include a "Writing process" section. Seto58 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * There is no mention of any criticism of her work, this should be investigated in the interests of WP:NPOV. ✅
 * As an example of what I mean, Alice Walker, another feminist writer, has been heavily criticised for her overwhelmingly negative portrayal of black men. - Has there been any criticism of Cisneros along these lines?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have just written a paragraph addressing this criticism in the article, please refer to the last paragraph of "Construction of femininity and female sexuality." Seto58 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN) I changed it simply to "They finally settled down in..." Does this sound better? Seto58 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * In future review processes it is not desirable to have references in the lead unless you are sourcing a quote, statistic or very controversial piece of information. It doesn't matter for now, but consider how important they are and whether they are really required.
 * "later draw from as a writer. She grew up as" might work better with a semi-colon. ✅
 * Things that need links (generally any proper nouns with articles of their own, plus any technical terms that are not commonly understood) should be linked only the first time they are mentioned (although if they appear in the lead and the main body of text, link the first occurence in each place). ✅
 * "paid a visit" - visited? ✅
 * "one of Chicago's poorest neighbourhoods" - which one?
 * "They were finally able to settle down," is a little cliche, I suggest removing it. ✅
 * Yes


 * "services to member writers such as health insurance" - can you give another example of these services? ✅
 * I changed it a bit to include the Residency program as a service, I hope that worksHeathermary (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary
 * Much clearer, well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Even if the English-speaking reader does not initially know that arroyo means creek, Cisneros soon translates it in a way that does not interrupt the flow of the text." - This seems self explanatory to me but if you want to keep it, preface it with a colon.

I will continue with the review (and hopefully complete it) tomorrow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done my first review. I think the article is good, but the biggest problem so far is the biography, which trails off at age 11. Once the above are dealt with I will go through the article again and perhaps suggest further changes. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - we'll start making these changes. Seto58 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Early life and education
hello, about the biography being cut off at age 11. well techincally thats not true. the reason i mention her age 11 because i thought it was important to note that at that age she finally settled down with her family. After that it does go on to talk about her highschool and that she had started taking up writing throughout highschool. the problem is, is that there's not much information out there about her high school years so it was hard to fill. and then after highschool it talks about what university degrees she received. any suggestions on how you want me to fix this.Valerie voikin (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't go through eveything until you (as a group) are satisfied that you have dealt with the problems I outlined above. However, on this issue I want you to take an objective look at the "Early life and education" section. Here there are two well researched paragraphs on her early childhood, then a shorter paragraph highlighting a detail of her early school years. However, having had all this interesting and relevant detail up to this point, the next decade or so is covered in just two lines. Ideas for expansion could include: more information about the poetry of her high school years, some (any) information about what she studied at university or who under, any changes in her home life during this period (locations, bereavement, relationships etc.). I don't know how available this information is, but to me this section of the article appears quite lopsided in favour of her early childhood - has she said anything herself about her time at university?--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

OK I think I've come up with a solution. The content I wrote for "Voice of the people" actually makes much more sense in "Early life and education." I've added it to this section and have fleshed out her post-eleven-years-old experience by describing how her identity as a writer was first formed, her thoughts about her university education, and where the first influences for her books came from. Valerie is right in that there is nothing more we can add about high-school - these poems are unpublished and there is very little written about her activities and accomplishments at this time - but I hope that this analysis of her university formation makes up for it! Seto58 (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

hey serena!! thanks so much for being so smart and doing that for me. your awesome!!!Valerie voikin (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice one guys, that section looks much better now. Unless there are any more urgent questions I won't be replying here until you have decided together that the article is ready for another look over. Keep up the good work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving on
Things are moving along nicely here, good job to all involved. When you believe you have addressed my issues above, then leave me a comment saying so (here is fine, I'll see it). I will then do a full review as before to pick up any new/remaining/missed points and see if it passes or whether a little more work is required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! It's been seven days since you first reviewed the article, and I remember hearing that seven days is how long you get to make edits in response to GA reviewer comments. Will you automatically re-review our article tonight or can we have a couple more days to finish responding to your comments? We're just about there, only a couple of items left. Thanks! Seto58 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

This does seem to be pretty close; let's hope the final issues can be resolved very shortly. :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Most GA reviewers will extend the assessment (within reason!) as long as constructive work is underway. If you're concerned, you can always drop Jacky a note on his talk page ;) EyeSerene talk 10:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course you can have extra time. GA isn't like an exam: if the improvements haven't been completed in the period suggested then more time will be allowed. The only way to fail is to give up on the article and stop working on it. It is a development process, not a deadline. Just let me know when you feel its ready and I'll do a second review.--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ready for second review!
Hi Jackyd101, we are ready for your second review. We're confident that we've addressed all of your criticisms essential to a Good Article and that we've improved the article significantly as a result. As you can see from the above section, we now have a photo that we can use and are awaiting EyeSerene's help on adding this to the page. Please let us know if there's any further work to be done and thanks for your patience! Seto58 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Seto58
 * Sorry, somehow this got buried in my watchlist and I missed it! I will do the review this weekend, hopefully tomorrow night (it's now my number one priority). From what I can see, the article should pass easily, great job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Second review
Sod it, I'll do it now. I'm happy to tell you that the article passes and is now certainly good enough for GA. I do have a few minor concerns and a couple of larger ones that should be addressed before the article is taken further, but I want to congratulate everyone on their hard work, this article is a credit to Wikipedia and a credit to yourselves. Any further questions, don't hesitate to ask--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose has improved to a 7.5/10. I feel the first paragraph of the main body needs some special attention just to smooth it out a bit more. However it is certainly good enough and the article as a whole is written to a high standard.
 * Link Guanajuato, Mexico
 * I think Americas Review should probably be in italics (and the "has" that follows should be "had").


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * When references are from the same place (i.e. page 27 of the Ganz book), it is recommended that they are merged together to save space. This is complicated unless you are used to it, but will be expected in future review processes. Instructions on how should be available on WP:CITE, but you can also just ask one of the experienced editors helping out for advice (or come to me).--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I'm not going to hold up the nomination, but I do have a problem here. In the works list at the end, there are 8 novels or short story compilations listed and yet only Mango Street and Hollering Creek are mentioned at all (with a couple of minor exceptions). Now I understand that these are her most significant works and should be given priority over the others, but not I think to the exclusion of any mention of them - when and at what stage in her life were they written? What was their reception like? What were their inspirations? Have they provoked any strong reactions other than those mentioned?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Good work with the image.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work with the image.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail: