Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?/Archive 1

Reference problem
OK, there's a problem with the following reference: "This novel was the first to be written in English by a Mexican living in the United States.'[1]" The first problem is where does the quotation start? There's a closing quotation mark, but not an opening one. The second problem is that we need an exact pagee number. At present the footnote states "Rivera 2006, p. 82." But in the reference, the Rivera article is from 2004, and takes up pages 451-470. So the reference is wrong at preent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from Rivera 2006 page 82. The entire book article is from page 82-109 I will make the necessary corrections on the quote. Thank You--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand... The book article that is in the references starts on page 451.  Is there some other Rivera article that is not included in the References?  This needs to be fixed.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, now I've fixed this. 1) It wasn't a quotation, so I removed the quotation mark.  2) It was a reference to a different book, other than the one included in the References section, so I removed the book that was there and added the right one.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that the other two quotations from this book were mis-transcribed, and either had no page number or had the wrong page number. I fixed these.  But beware. You must be accurate when citing from sources! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary
I note that there's been movement on the plot summary, which is grand. But do take a look not only at your model articles (such as The General in His Labyrinth and El Señor Presidente), where you'll see how much space a plot summary takes up, but also this guideline. A plot summary should be around 300-500 words. I note that you guys have written 718 words already, and not got past page 25... You're going to have to be much more concise than this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Or to put it another way... Again, the point is to use the bibliography you have compiled, rather than simply to go through the plot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting article so far. Plot summaries are difficult to get right, but it's better to have too much than too little, as it can always be snipped... ;) EyeSerene talk 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with EyeSerene. Ignore your professor :-) and write-write-write. Then sleep-sleep-sleep. Then cut-cut-cut! (On wikipedia, the technical term for the last stage is "copyediting" :-) Geometry guy 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's probably not bad advice to ignore me, at least from time to time... Indeed, I'm sorry but I had to cut out a reference you just added. Sadly, my lectures are not reliable sources. (I know, it's a crying shame!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

genre = 19th century fiction
Hello! When the infobox asks for the "genre" of the novel, it's asking for something from this, not 19th century fiction. :) Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, in fact I think that for most books this field is more trouble than it's worth. I've removed it.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. Just wanted to be sure that your students knew what it was supposed to mean. =) Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  15:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing...
I don't know if you guys will know the answer to this, but what is with the links in the references? The links seem to go nowhere... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  00:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. There are no links in the references.  If you mean the references in the bibliography, on this page, above...  You need a JSTOR or EBSCO subscription to access them online.  Anyone who is reading this from a major university can usually see them, so it's helpful to many, if not to all.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry&mdash;I meant the "Notes" section. :) &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When you click a footnote, the appropriate work in the References section is highlighted. The only one for which this is not the case is Madsen.  We need the info on that!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just made an educated guess on the Madsen, and fixed the reference. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa....cool...I've never seen that before! =) Never mind then. Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PLAN
Okay, so here is our plan to begin our article.

--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC) --Annac89 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC) --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Meet up weekly to share articles that we've found online and visit the library for further references.✅
 * 2) Write up our bibliography list ✅
 * 3) Expand on what we've started so far and decide headings(such as History, Theme etc,)✅ --Annac89 (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Begin with introduction and continue with a detailed discussion of the plot (making a summary)
 * 5) Go into detail after our summary to cover the characters and major themes  ✅
 * 6) Expand on the history relating to the book by familiarizing ourselves with author as well as reception and criticism of the book. ✅
 * 7) Create an additional section; Style (the irony and critism)  ✅
 * 8) After we have a rough draft of each heading, we will log in frequently to add and revise ✅
 * 9) From our research and further readings, we hope that more themes/aspects will come to light to clarify ideas we already have.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annac89 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) make the transition from a stub, mid-important article to a featured article --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Important dates (from North de Rio Grande page)
 * 1) September 26, - bibliography, submit article for peer review.
 * 2) November 10- Good article nominations.
 * 3) November 26-featured article candidacy submission

Oct.20.08 - goals for next mon! Assign parts in general, but make sure we edit and expand on eachother's sections! Plot Summary-alex Intro and characters- anna + nic --Annac89 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good plan. You can of course add to it over time.  And cross things off when you've done them, including adding a big green checkmark ✅ ✅.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oct.27.08 Hey guys! i removed the headings that have not been started yet because our page looks incomplete with all those empty headings!! Add it back when we actually have something to write. (Removed MAJOR THEMES) --Annac89 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. NB, however, as I was telling Nicolecruz today, this is indeed an important section.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Annac89, please introduce your quote for Mrs. Norval and write the character descriptions for Reverend Hackwell. You can mention Emma Hackwell in Reverend Hackwell's description since she isn't a major character anyway. I will work on the major themes in the next few days.--Nicolecruz (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Annac89, you mentioned that you have excellentn materials on manifest destiny. please write about it over the weekend so I can merge it into my discussion on how it affects class well before the deadline. Thanks.--Nicolecruz (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nicolecruz, I have started something for all of the characters already, i will have them finished by monday. I also have a few very good references(quotes) that will fit in very well to Race and Gender which i will add in over the weekend. Yes, i will give you my notes for the manifest destiny as soon as i am finished with the characters :) --Annac89 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Annac89, you can write about Manifest Destiny instead of giving the notes to me since you have seen from which context it comes from. Also, I now have Jose Marti's "Our America" which is especially helpful. Let me know if you are needing additional references. I think I have enough on race and gender but put the quotes for on the talk page anyways. I could compare it to what I have already used. --Nicolecruz (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Annac89, I've edited more of the technical details on Julian. Please clarify why Mrs. Norval demanded Julian to return home and were you intentionally implying that this had something to do with Lola and Emma?


 * Nicolecruz, I am still working on Julian so there will be quite a bit to be clarified until i am finished —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annac89 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To do
OK, guys, you've put this in for Good Article Nomination. Well and bravely done! You've certainly come a long way since the beginning of the semester.

There are, however, a few things you definitely need to do to this article, and any reviewer will tell you as much, so you should do them as soon as possible, ideally before a reviewer comes by:


 * First, the article should have no clean-up tags. At present it has two: on what are currently footnotes 19 and 36 .✅ --Annac89 (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Second, there are some sections that could do with some expansion. I'm thinking particularly of Background (see the Sánchez and Pita introduction on this), Technical Devices (which could probably be renamed "Style"), and Criticism (which can be merged with "Publication history" and renamed "Criticism and reception"; see Aranda for this, perhaps).


 * Third, there are still some sections or subsections that consist of unadorned quotation. These include the sections on "Irony and satire," "Class," "Gender," and "Criticism."  The thoughts and opinions of critics need to be set into context and introduced; though you don't need to avoid quotation altogether, you should use paraphrase more often, and introduce and explain what they have to say.


 * Fourth, the lead needs expansion so it reflects the article as a whole. See WP:LEAD.

With the above, it is possible that a reviewer may fail this article outright at WP:GAN. If that happens, don't be discouraged: the beauty of the Wiki is that you can try and try again. Nothing's final. However, let's try to avoid that by fixing the above issues in the next day or two.

Again, you guys have come a long way. You're on the final straight!

Once these major issues are sorted, we can also worry about such things as copy-editing.

Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with these comments. I think the priorities are paraphrasing or supplementing unadorned quotation, expanding sections on style and critical reception, while cutting and copyediting plot and character sections to make them more encyclopedic. Once that's done, we'll be in good shape to rewrite the lead! I can help with that. Geometry guy 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

progress?
Guys, I'm a touch worried... As is verified in our progress reports, the rate of advance of this article is slowing down...  from 70 edits in the first period, to 34 and now 27. C'mon, don't give up... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, there seems to have been a certain amount of write-write-write on this article, and a certain amount of sleep-sleep-sleep, so perhaps it is time for some cut-cut-cut. I have a feeling that you (Nicole and Anna) might be stuck because of the (presumably incomplete) plot summary. Try slashing it back to a single paragraph: you can always revert if you don't like it. Then see if you can summarize the rest of the plot with the same terseness. I've cut the first two sections down to one to show how you can cut material once you know what you want to say. I may have done this very badly because I have not read any of the sources, so you must feel confident to revert what I have done and do it better.
 * The section on characters also needs to be reduced substantially. However, before this, it might be a good idea to exercise your ability to paraphrase and precis. The article at present contains very many literal quotes. These are not necessary. Try paraphrasing them, giving references to the source. Then try distilling the essence out of them. Again, I tried this on the first section, but may have done it badly because I have not read any of the sources. See if you can get the idea of what I did, and do it better.
 * You have made fantastic progress on this article, but I think you haven't completely taken on board the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are boring, right? That does not mean that the article you write should be boring (it will never get featured if it is!) but you need to understand why encyclopedias are generally boring. It is because they state the facts, they don't have a point of view, they do not advance a thesis, and they do not try (deliberately or not) to change the world.
 * You need to take the material you have found in the sources and present it to the readers not as a term paper, not as an idea, not as thesis, but as knowledge. The first step is to write most of it in your own words. Encyclopedias do not literally quote sources, they cite and/or attribute them. For every quotation, ask yourself (1) "is it important that I use these words" and (2) "is it important that I attribute this comment to that source". In most cases, you don't need to use the words of the source, so paraphrase, and even synthesize source viewpoints where there is agreement. For the second point, if the source is expressing an opinion that other sources disagree with, then attribute it by saying "According to X,..." If the source is just documenting a widely agreed fact then just footnote it.
 * It isn't easy to do this, so pick an issue and focus on it. Tell me on my talk page what you are trying to do, and I will help. Tell your professor too: he wants to help! Even if you are behind schedule, I will support you all the way. Geometry guy 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've commented further on my talk page in response to your queries. Good luck! Geometry guy 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Geometry guy- thanks for fixing up the page number in Technical Devices, page xv is correct.--Annac89 (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Google books is a marvellous resource. Just to illustrate, I've added something that may be ahead of the times (I got the idea from the young members of the rival team, which is tantamount to industrial espionage, so please don't tell!). Google books allows you to search for page numbers and highlight text, so as long as the particular part of the book is visible, you can make the page number link to the page itself, and even highlight the quote. Your prof may or may not like it and WP:FAC may or may not like it either, but I think it is the ultimate in easy reader verifiability. Just click the page number in the footnote, and you get the quote.
 * So now, there is even less excuse for a section containing only a long direct quotation: try e.g. quoting a bit of it and paraphrasing the rest, with a linked citation to the full quotation. Geometry guy 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made this easier to do now with a template, but this is experimental, so don't worry about it too much. However, it does make it easy for readers to check whether a quote from the source supports a statement in the article or not. I've already fixed prose and page references by trying to build this template. Geometry guy 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Linking to Google Books?? Oh the infamy! That's actually pretty clever - I haven't seen that before. Consider your idea stolen. Ha ha! EyeSerene talk 09:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the threat posed to Wikipedia is fairly mild, as the template is still quite hard to use. Infamy? Infamy? They've all got it infamy! Geometry guy 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Adjectives needed
I've attempted to rewrite the Lola section to use the source material in a more encyclopedic way. I haven't read the book or the critical sources, so I may have made a mess. I am also no expert on this kind of article, so Awadewit (and Jbm) could well tear my effort to shreds! :-) However, I think they point towards the sorts of changes that Awadewit is asking for in these sections. In particular, I have paraphrased some quotes and attributed them. In the attributions however, we need an adjective which describes the commentators. Is Jesse Alemán a literary critic, social historian, or what? Similarly for the others. Geometry guy 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did a lot of research on Lola and will be looking at the changes. When I wrote that section, I don't think I presented a NPOV. I will be working towards that and try to incorporate other sources I've come across. I think the section might be too long in comparison to the rest of the characters. Do you agree? Or does that mean we have to lengthen the rest of the characters? I will get working on the adjectives for the critics and will post them here as I get a hold of them so it will be easily accessible to all of us.--Nicolecruz (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lola is the driving force behind much of the plot (although I am not sure she is the "protagonist" - Dr. Norval at least shares that role) so it is fair that her description is longer. Look to the critical sources, as well as the novel: whom do they concentrate on? At a guess, I would say that the section on Lavinia is too long, but the section on Mr. Hackwell (the antagonist, together with Mrs. Norval?) is too short. Geometry guy 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response! You raise an interesting point on Lola, one that Jbm mentioned in class. Lola doesn't really do anything but her presence fuels the actions of the people around her. I think you described it perfectly when you reworded it to "back story". I will check again if any of the critics call her the protagonist but they do talk about her extensively. Thank you for clarifying that the character descriptions do not have to be of equal lengths and that their significance in the story should guide the length of description. We'll be expanding on Mr. Hackwell and Mrs. Norval. --Nicolecruz (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesse Alemán- Associate Professor of English at the University of New Mexico. "His scholarship bridges the gap between both fields by focusing on the U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1848) as a formative moment for Anglo and Mexican American literary and cultural identities." (UNM)--Nicolecruz (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Need for historical source
I have removed for a second time a citation to Madsen page 106 in support the claim "However, native land-holding elites of northern California had lost a significant portion of their lands overnight and these lands became a part of the expanding American empire." Here is what Madsen p. 106 actually says:
 * "The extent to which this treaty [of Guadalupe-Hidalgo] was honoured is revealed by the experiences recorded in autobiography and memoir by those who found themselves subject to the radical cultural trauma of being transformed virtually overnight from citizens of a Catholic, Spanish-speaking, newly independent nation to citizens of the Protestant, English-speaking and imperialistic United States.
 * "Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo's Recuerdos historicos y personales tocante a la alta Calafornia (1875) is one of many personal memoirs collected by the scholar Hubert Howe Bancroft for his monumental History of California (1884-90)... Vallejo belonged to the landholding elite of northern California; he initially supported American annexation... he later lost the bulk of his lands and was reduced to near-penury. He described the reversal of his fortunes as exemplary of the loss of power, prestige and rights of all Californios in what is no longer their home but a part of the expanding American empire."
 * (She then quotes him.)

In other words, Madsen is referring to a historical source (Bancroft) who is in turn quoting a personal memoir. The interpretation by Madsen of this individual viewpoint is converted in the article into fact, widely held belief, and common experience. Madsen is not a reliable source for such a claim. We really need an historical source. We could try to use Bancroft, available online, but there may be a better more modern source. Geometry guy 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! sorry for the mixup geometry guy! I am not very good with citations and I thought that I needed to cite the page where it was found. thanks for clearing this up for me! I will try to find a historical source for this. --Annac89 (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Time to get good! :-) Actually, you are correct that you should cite the source and page where you found the material. However, you need to make sure that what you write in the article reflects what you found in the source.
 * In this case, you would have to write something like "Literary scholar Deborah Madsen describes the cultural trauma of the virtually overnight transition from Mexican to U.S. rule; she notes at least one example of an elite landholder who lost a significant proportion of his land in what had become, for him, no longer his home, but part of the expanding American empire." This is not very compelling and the last clause is stretching the source material a bit, which is why we really need a historical source. Bon courage! Geometry guy 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Review
Hi, User:Nicolecruz asked me to take a look at the article. You obviously have the skeleton of the article constructed (and I couldn't think of any other sections that should be included), and some sections seem fairly well done. Other sections will require a lot of work. I read part of Awadewit's review above, and her comments are very good and should be addressed. Some of mine will likely duplicate hers. I will be watching this talk page, so please feel free to ask any questions. Please note that I know nothing about this book, and I am very unfamiliar with your sources.
 * Thank you for entertaining my request! Your comments are insightful and we will use it alongside Awadewit's Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent work in a few places in the characters section attributing opinions to the scholars who gave those. This practice needs to be expanded throughout the article.
 * In the lead, I would switch the thoughts in the first two sentences - the book is much more important for being the first novel written in English by a MExican in the US, not for being published in 1872.
 * switched. but the lead still needs workNicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence is a bit awkward "Ruiz de Burton’s life was not typically Chicana, being married to Captain Henry S. Burton after the Mexican–American War" - generally avoid constructs like "being married"
 * "Considering the place of publication" - we weren't actually told before where the book was published
 * Italicize words in foreign languages (like precis aleman)
 * I meant that I used precis for literary scholar Aleman's words but did not know how to indicate this Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

replaced that sentence with yours. thanks! Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the background section a bit to make it flow more and to ensure that it had the appropriate amount of background information at the appropriate time. Assume that your readers know nothing about this topic, and make sure that the facts flow in a way that makes sense to them.
 * The plot summary needs to be copyedited. The prose is okay, but it does not flow well and the sentences are not always grammatical.  For example " when the news of Dr. Norval’s death reaches the doctor himself, Dr. Norval " could be "Dr. Norval returns to New England after learning that he has been assumed dead".
 * Does the plot summary find the right balance of important facts? To me, as someone who knows nothing about the book, there appear to be a lot of details that are obscuring a bit the major themes of the book.
 * Is there any further detail on some of the opinion that is being given? For example, look at the Jesse Alema'n comments in the Lola section - he "sees her situation as symbolic of the eighty thousand Mexicans who were "orphaned" in the southwestern U.S. at the end of the Mexican-American War" - was that expanded on at all in his book?
 * There are several quotations in the Lola section that are not attributed. Generally, when the quotes are long, you should mention the author in the sentence.
 * The character section needs to focus less on the specific actions they took in the book, but on how that impacted the story or what it represents. This is done fairly well in the Lola section, but not quite as well in the Dr. Norval section, and then the Julian section is almost completely a rehash of the plot.
 * This sentence may need to be cited: "She is unable to restrain her infatuation towards Mr.Hackwell and her constant longing to be in his presence blinds her to the point of forgetting her wounded son and lost husband"
 * removed, has a lot of unnecessary detail. and she believed her husband was dead. i don't think she thought he was lost. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lavinia is not mentioned in the plot summary, so it is a surprise to see her in the characters section. Perhaps that means she is not a major character and should not get her own section?
 * I will mention her more in the plot since she is a significant character. Nicolecruz (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The genre section needs to be fleshed out. It cannot contain jsut a quote, and the quote itself must be attributed to someone.
 * Need to make it clear that this is referring to the romance (genre), not the modern-day historical romance.
 * The last half of the Irony and satire section needs to be sourced
 * There are also uncited bits (or maybe just one) in Allegory
 * I've fixed the one citiation in Allegory. THanks so much for the pointers!--Annac89 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the class section, expand on what "gente de razon " and "gente sin razon" mean - non-Spanish people likely don't know that.
 * provided direct translation "people with reason" and "people without reason" but I still have to introduce the concepts Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Class section should not be all quotes
 * I'm working on it!


 * Uncited passages in religion need to be fixed.
 * No idea what this means (and it is uncited): "Cultural whiteness has an arbitrary relationship with society."
 * These were my words. I will perhaps expand on it Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The wealth section could be expanded quite a bit. It speaks of the use that the Spaniards had for the wealth, but does not touch on the greed that it sparked on the whites
 * good point! Nicolecruz (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Gender section needs to be expanded so not just quotes
 * I'm working on this one too Nicolecruz (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did the book regain notice in the 1950s?
 * Has it been published outside the US (translated at all)?
 * The information about the racist viewpoints (in reception), probably needs to be included in the Race themes section
 * I have taken this quote out of Reception--Annac89 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Any information on how well these have sold?
 * No =( I was unable to find record sales of this book--Annac89 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When did people realize that the book was the first in English by a Spanish speaker?

Nicole and Anna's after class conversation
Hi Anna, since class is over *tear* I thought I'd keep an open communication so I created a section for our conversations that normally take place before or after class. Please note that there are two Rivera books. Indicate which one you are quoting because the two are very similar and the text might be considered "inacurate" because of the perceived "typos" if we do not do so and create confusion. - This is the book I am using
 * Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture New York, NY: New York UP, 2006.

- I've already returned this book and asked the librarian to put it on hold for you. It is a great source!
 * Rivera, John-Michael (2004), "Embodying Greater Mexico: María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and the Reconstruction of the Mexican Question", in Smith, Jon; Cohn, Deborah, Look Away! The U.S. South in New World Studies, Durham, NC: Duke Univesity Press, pp. 451-470, ISBN 978-0822333166.

--Nicolecruz (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm signing off for tonight. As I was going through the article, I noticed that the spelling of some of the words are inconsistent. I spell things the American way and you use Canadian spelling. But since this assignment is Canadian, I think it would be appropriate to use Canadian spelling. But this is minor in comparison to the improvements we need to do. Perhaps we can address it after we have crossed everything off the checklist.


 * Oh I forgot to ask, how do you feel about having our conversation here? Would you prefer that we talk in our own talkpages?


 * --Nicolecruz (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Nicole! I agree, I think that Canadian spelling is more appropriate. I am still researching about Reception and will expand the Irony section to include specific examples from characters in the novel. I'm fine with having our conversations here! It is more convenient to have everything on the Discussion page. We can go through the checklist and add any notes to eachother right here at the bottom! toodles for now :)
 * --Annac89 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Anna, where does this quote come from? I was thinking of using it for the section on Class:
 * "Indeed, Ruiz de Burton's adherence to a stringent class structure, which seeks to segregate the Mexican from the Native Indian, only reflects the contradictions within her own efforts to gain equality in the Anglo-American society. Because of these contradictions, some critics have hesitated to consider Ruiz de Burton after reading her works because they inevitably find her upper-class aristocratic viewpoints at times racist and arrogant."
 * Could you tell me the page number as well? Thanks Nicolecruz (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Nicole! Hey Nicole, is it from de la Luz Montes, here is the ref. for it

This is found on page 185 --Annac89 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * oops! I didn't realize that it would show up like that. Here is the full info: de la Luz Montes, Amelia (2002), "'See How I Am Received.' Nationalism, Race, and Gender in Who Would Have Thought It?", in Aldama, Arturo J.; Quiñonez, Naomi Helena, Decolonial Voices: Chicana and Chicano Cultural Studies in the 21st Century (page 185)--Annac89 (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Anna, I am editing the section on Background and I believe you wrote this sentence :"Despite 10 years of living in Eastern cities, as a Latin-American Catholic, Ruiz de Burton was considered an outsider in Union territory." It gave me the impression that Ruiz de Burton was a Latin-American Catholic instead of a Roman Catholic. Is that what you meant? --Nicolecruz (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note on spelling - Generally, it is best to use the spelling most related to the topic. Since the novel is set in the US and written by a woman living in the US, it would be best to use American spelling. If the topic was Canadian, then the spelling should be Canadian. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a fair point, but not compelling: the author was an outsider in the US, and the novel is an implicit critique of US imperialism during the period. One could argue that the novel was written in 19th century US English, I suppose. However, I'm not sure the case is strong enough ("strong national ties") to deviate from the basic rule, which is to follow the language preference of the first major contributor(s) to the article. That would be Nicole, Anna and Jbm. Of course, they don't have to choose Canadian. Geometry guy 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG. Not an ENGVAR dispute! I would suggest not worrying about this at all, since there are so many more substantive issues to deal with in the article. Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and am disputing nothing! Geometry guy 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

GA closure
After reviewing the... reviews, it would seem that this article still has some basic GA issues to resolve (expansion of topics is mostly an FA issue, mention is acceptable under GA). Because the hold has gone on for over seven days (the customary timeframe) and there is a large backlog at GA, I am recommending that this be closed as a Fail for now, and resubmitted for GA review when all the issues on this page have been addressed. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 19:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Who cares if there is a backlog? It's just a number, man. As long as the reviewer wishes to keep reviewing and helping with this, it should stay open. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the_ed17. This is a decision for the reviewer alone and has absolutely nothing to do with the number of articles listed at GAN. Geometry guy 20:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi All, I am one of the major contributors to this page and my group has been working tirelessly with Wikipedia editors to improve improve Who Would Have Thought It? We are doing our best to address the concerns in the informal review Awadewit has kindly written for us. She has seen how far along the the article has come and agreed to give us an extension. We do not want the hold to be indefinite. Since this article is primarily being written for our course, we won't be needing a lot more time because the course is already ending next week and our goal is to obtain GA status before then.


 * Thanks Geometry guy and the_ed17 for your support and quick response!
 * --Nicolecruz (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, and good luck! I hope that you continue to edit Wikipedia after your course too. ;D — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! All the time and effort put into this article has made it more than just a school assignment! we will keep on improving this.--Annac89 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the editors as working to improve the article, I see no reason to fail the article, as I have stated in my comments throughout this process. However, as I know that they are working on this for a class, I will have to make a decision in the next week so that their professor knows what grade to give them! I am hoping that they will finish up the necessary work so that I can pass this article in seven days. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quote box
I have added a quote box in the "Lola" section. If you like the quote, please add a page number from the edition of the text being used throughout the rest of the article. I only have access to the online edition. Awadewit (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)