Talk:Who Would Have Thought It?/GA1

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

I am posting the first part of my review now - I will post the second part later tonight. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Where this article fails the GA criteria:
 * 1a) incoherent and ungrammatical prose throughout the text
 * 1b) fails WP:LEAD
 * 2b) quotations are unattributed in the text
 * 3a) genre and reception are barely touched on in the article
 * 3b) plot summary and character descriptions go into unnecessary detail


 * Hi Awadewit, I'm going to put a name under each of the headings to oversee that things are getting crossed off but we will not limit ourselves to just editing our assigned sections. --Nicolecruz (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead
Nicole


 * The lead needs to be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD (please read this page for help on how to write leads - they are difficult). Think of the lead as a miniature version of the article - it needs to be able to standalone. Some readers only read the lead - shocking, isn't it? :)


 * Example: *Who Would Have Thought It? is a novel written by María Ruiz de Burton that was published in 1872. - Help the reader learn about Ruiz de Burton - can you describe her in a phrase or two in this sentence?


 * The lead is still not a summary of the article. It contains details like the connection to Huck Finn not in the article (these details shouldn't be in the lead anyway) and large sections of the article are not even referred to, such as the "Styles" and "Themes". Awadewit (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The infobox contained information from several editions, so I deleted everything that wasn't about the first edition. However, I wasn't sure about the number of pages - does that describe the first edition? You might consider deleting the infobox entirely. Infoboxes are not required and this one does not seem to assist the reader.

Background
Anna
 * The "Background" section needs to be expanded:
 * I would add a few more sentences describing Ruiz de Burton's biographical background.
 * ✅Added more information about her family, marriage and where she lived--Annac89 (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This section has improved dramatically! Wow! The reader has a much better idea of who Ruiz de Burton is and the historical context surrounding the composition of the book. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruiz de Burton was a native of Baja California who moved to Alta California in 1847 and witnessed the economic, social and political turmoil of the American Civil War. - I think you need to explain to readers how she experienced the effects of the Civil War in California - most readers associate the Civil War with the eastern United States.


 * She was married to Colonel Henry S. Burton, who had been sent to Baja California to suppress a Mexican uprising. - When did she marry him? What Mexican uprising? ✅
 * Riviera sources does not state specifically which Mexican uprising so I've decided to take it out.--Annac89 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * July 7th 1849 marriage --Annac89 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Small note: I've refactored this comment. It is generally not a good idea to interrupt other users' comments with your own. It is confusing.) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary
Nicole
 * The "Plot summary" is too long and is much too difficult to follow. I have listed some places where the reader becomes confused, but it might be best to entirely rewrite the plot summary. Try to think of what major events the reader must know about to understand the general narrative arc of the story rather than trying to detail all of the twists and turns of the plot. Also, remember that plot summaries don't have to be told in the same order as the original novel.


 * If Hackwell is a minister, he should not be referred to as "Mr" but rather "Rev".
 * A rare error, Awadewit! One should not address a reverend as "Reverend Surname."  It can be "Mr. Hackwell," "Rev. Mr. Hackwell," or "Rev. Toby [for now I forget his first name] Hackweel," but never "Rev. Hackwell."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, my father goes by "Rev. X" and he's a Protestant minister. :) Perhaps it was different in the nineteenth century? Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another PK, eh? Mine, too.  (Though he's a Rev. Dr., so the issue doesn't arise....)  Anyhow, see the Wikipedia article on the topic: '"The Reverend" is traditionally used with Christian names (or initials) and surname, such as "The Reverend John Smith" or "The Reverend J.F. Smith". Use of the prefix with the surname alone ("The Reverend Smith") is considered a solecism in traditional usage (although "The Reverend Father Smith" or "The Reverend Mr Smith" are correct though somewhat old-fashioned uses).'
 * In any case, in the novel he is certainly both a Reverend and Mr. Hackwell. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're pointing me to the Wikipedia article as a reference!? :) As for how to refer to him in the plot summary, we should the follow the novel's style, clearly. Awadewit (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel begins in the middle of a conversation between two New England pastors, Rev. Hackwell and Rev. Hammerhard, who reveal themselves to have questionable attributes despite their positions at the local Protestant Church. - What is questionable about them?
 * I erased this. It is not as important as the rest of the text


 * Their gossip about the people in New England - They gossip about people in all of New England? ✅
 * they gossip about the Cackle and the Norval families --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Their gossip about the people in New England serves as an introduction to the Cackle family, Mrs. Norval and the absent Dr. Norval, whom the ministers have described as a social delinquent, hinting at his supposed Southern sympathies as a Democrat at a time in which there was increasing tension between the North and the South. - run-on sentence


 * She explained that she was a captive of the Apache, and requested that her daughter Lola be taken away from captivity. - It is not clear how this could happen - if Lola was being held captive, how could Dr. Norval take her away? Does he steal her out of captivity? ✅
 * Yes, Dr. Norval steals her from captivity but I used the word rescue instead --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sinclair was in charge of investing the gold in properties and other investments that will increase Lola's wealth. Lebrun transcribed this and additional information that will help find Don Medina and he promised to mail the transcription once it is finished. - The reader does not know who Sinclair and Lebrun are - they are suddenly introduced at this point. Either take these details out, if they are unnecessary, or explain who these characters are. ✅
 * *Sinclair and Lebrun are now introduced as Dr. Norval's companions during the trip.--Nicolecruz (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mrs. Norval's intentions and motivations are unclear in the plot summary.
 * This has been made much clearer. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * During this time, Rev. Hackwell uses his influence to manipulate Mrs. Norval and they plot to keep Lola's fortune for themselves. - Why is Rev. Hackwell plotting with Mrs. Norval?
 * While this sentence is no longer in the plot summary, the connection between these two characters is still not clearly explained. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Julian returns from Battle of the Bull Run and the love triangle between Lola, Emma and Julian is introduced. - Is this the First Battle of Bull Run or the Second Battle of Bull Run? ✅
 * rephrased and removed battle the of bull run


 * Julian returns from Battle of the Bull Run and the love triangle between Lola, Emma and Julian is introduced. - Who are Julian and Emma? How much time has passed? Some must have, since Lola can now be part of a love triangle. ✅
 * I think I was going into too much detail on this one so tried incorporating it with the more significant events.


 * During this time, Lola's dyed skin begins to fade, leaving blotches and making her appear "spotted" and almost infectious as Mrs. Norval describes. - run-on sentence ✅
 * removed sentence--Nicolecruz (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Hackwell exchanges his position as Reverend becomes a major. - What does this mean? ✅
 * Rev. resigns his position from the Church and joins the military.
 * I've reworded this a bit. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They continue plotting. - Eh? What does this mean? Give the reader a hint of what the characters are doing. ✅


 * Julian and Mr. Hackwell are simultaneously confined in the hospital for battle injuries - When was Hackwell injured? ✅


 * The news of Dr. Norval's death reaches Dr. Norval who immediately returns to New England in order to clear the confusion. - I am just totally confused now. ✅
 * the plot is more linear now --Nicolecruz (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of these problems were partially fixed by my copyedit to the plot summary yesterday. However, in making this copyedit, I noticed the same issues: focus on detail and narrative order rather than story arc, and confusing prose. This section must be written for a reader who has not read the book, and Awadewit gives great advice on how to do it. My copyedit doesn't do it, but I hope it points in the right direction. Geometry guy 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Geometry guy, thanks for your copyedit! It gave me more of a direction when I was editing it a few days ago. I tried to summarize the story in a more linear manner. I was wondering if the significance of the events should also be included or should we just leave that for the section on theme. --Nicolecruz (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary is much improved, but it still needs some small clarifications:
 * Dr. Norval's return from the southwest is accompanied by a ten-year-old girl, Lola - The first sentence is confusing to a reader who is unfamiliar with the story - Dr. Norval needs to be introduced in some way and an explanation for his trip needs to be given.
 * indicated as return from geological expedition. Rephrased as "The novel opens with Dr. Norval's return from a geological expedition from southwest, accompanied by a ten-year-old girl, Lola and trunks of supposed geological specimens." --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Puritan Yankee Mrs. Norval is angered when she hears this but quickly reconciles her emotions when he shows her more than a millions worth of stones - "a millions worth" doesn't make sense
 * Dr. Norval's self-exile from New England during the Civil War allows Mrs. Norval to spend Lola's wealth as if it was her own. - Why is he exiling himself?
 * When Dr. Norval is presumed dead, Mr. Hackwell sees this as an opportunity to enter into a clandestine marriage with Mrs. Norval. - This is the first the reader hears of Mr. Hackwell - we need to know something about him.
 * added adjective "hypocritical minister" --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Hackwell resigns his position as Reverend and becomes a Major - What is the significance of this event in the narrative? To a reader unfamiliar with the plot, this fact seems unconnected with the rest of the plot summary.
 * Dr. Norval returns to New England after learning that he has been presumed dead. - Is there a dramatic confrontation at this point in the narrative? It seems odd that nothing would happen as a result of a man who was presumed dead returning home!
 * No dramatic confrontation. Dr. Norval returns and Mr. Hackwell leaves. Mrs. Norval succumbs to a brain fever and is rendered speechless after she hears the news. Dr. Norval takes care of her.

I did a little bit of copyediting on this section as I was reading - don't forget to link key terms for readers who are unfamiliar with American history! Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Hackwell takes advantage of the Norval men's lack of supervision of Lola. - I don't understand the connection between this sentence and the rest of the plot summary.
 * Lavinia is given an entire subsection in the "Characters" section but is never mentioned in the plot summary. This raises the question: if she is important enough to be given a subsection in the "Characters" section, why isn't she important enough to mention in the plot summary? Something is amiss here. Either she is not important enough for her own subsection in the "Characters" section or she should be mentioned in the plot summary.
 * Thank you for the additional feedback on our article. --Nicolecruz (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Characters
Nicole
 * The character descriptions are far too detailed. At times, they repeat the plot summary. The emphasis of the article should not be on explaining the details of the story but rather it should be on explaining what the story means (the themes, for example) and the influence of the story on literature at large. I have identified some problems with the sentences in the character descriptions, but it could be when you rewrite these descriptions that these sentences will be eliminated. The character descriptions should situate the characters within the larger themes of the story.


 * Here is a sample character description of Gregor Samsa from The Metamorphosis which is a good mix of plot and theme: "Gregor Samsa is a traveling salesman who awakens one morning to find himself transformed into a giant insect. Gregor becomes a burden to members of his family, who are forced to care for him in his new physical state. He thus suffers intense feelings of guilt over not being able to provide for them. Eventually rejected by his family and isolated from his capitalistic, industrial society, Gregor ultimately sacrifices his own well-being for the good of his family, starving himself and dying a death of alienation and loneliness." (From Readings on the Metamorphosis by Hayley Haugen, pg. 23)


 * he demands that Mrs. Norval arrange Lola’s room herself - What does "arrange" mean here? ✅
 * I removed this sentence and replaced it with "he demands that she give Lola a proper furnished room" --Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead, he only takes six percent which seemed fair to him and as he explains this to Lola, she still insists that he take half. - very awkward ✅
 * replaced with "Dr. Norval refuses to accept the half of Lola's immense fortune that her mother had insisted. Instead, he only takes six percent of Lola's inheritance." Lola's insistence is a detail we could do without. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He tells her that he will be telling Julian about everything they have discussed and is instructing him to look after her while he is away. - confusing and hard to follow


 * As a Northern Democrat who has shown sympathies towards the South, he finds that he needs to leave the country. He supports the Union but at the same time sees the hypocrisy that its democratic claim cannot conceal. - The politics of the novel have been totally obscured up until this point, so this claim makes no sense to the reader.
 * This is still the case - the plot summary does not discuss the politics of the novel at all. I would suggest adding a bit more to the plot summary on the political setting of the novel. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the subsection on Dr. Norval, the plot and thematic elements are poorly intertwined.
 * What could be improved now is the connection between the description of the book and the interpretation offered by the scholars. The interpretation is just sort of tacked on. Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The Indians insisted they be painted with a special dye that would change the color of their skin from white to black. - The plot summary suggested it was only Lola who was painted - were they both painted?
 * Yes, they were both painted. I rewrote this sentence. "Dr. Norval explains that Lola and her mother were Spanish captives of the Apache, and that their white skin was dyed black by her captors to hide them from rescuers." Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The analysis of Lola's identity needs to be better integrated into the subsection - the quotes are just a shock the reader right now. They seem plopped into the middle the subsection.


 * Lola is an example of a mestizo position. - Explain to the reader what this is.
 * We still need to explain "mestizo". Awadewit (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Norval's wife, a religious woman, strongly believes in the upholding of Yankee Puritan morality. - "New England Puritan", perhaps? ✅


 * There are some strangely coded quotes in the "Mrs. Norval" subsection - they are not appearing in the text.


 * The second half of the "Mrs. Norval" subsection is repetitive and confusing - her hypocrisy and lust is not clearly presented, just repeated.
 * I have edited Mrs. Norval's section extensively. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He and Mrs.Norval plot to take advantage of Lola's immense fortune. - "to take advantage" is vague


 * he manipulates her into carrying out his cynical deeds - "cynical deeds" doesn't make sense ✅


 * The pedestal on which Hackwell is placed reveals the influence that a minister holds. - Who places him on a pedestal?
 * pedestal is not mention at all in the book. I removed this part entirely and focused on Mrs. Norval's role as a mother, how she used Lola' wealth to find suitable matches for them and how the money corrupts her. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He is parodied by Ruiz de Burton to contrast his holy title with the reality of his conduct as his material greed transforms into a strong lustful desire towards Lola. - I can't follow this sentence .✅
 * This sentence still doesn't make sense. How about "Ruiz de Burton parodies..." and then explain what the parody is exactly. Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * he was sent to Europe for schooling until he was called back by his mother for her dislike of foreign things. - What? The readers doesn't know what to make of this.


 * Do we need such detail about Julian and Emma?
 * No we don't, this was integrated into Mr. Hackwell's scheme to obtain control of the Norval family Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Julian is also a war hero fighting for the Union who was wounded at Battles of Bull Run and Chancellorsville - Be clear about which Battles of Bull Run Julian fought in (First Battle of Bull Run or Second Battle of Bull Run or both?) ✅
 * "First Battle of Bulls Run" - is this supposed to mean "first Battle of Bull Run" or "both battles of Bull Run"? Awadewit (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lavinia Sprig is an old maid who lives with her sister - Even if the text refers to her as an "old maid", we should not do so. Either quote this or rephrase in more encyclopedic language. Try to write these character descriptions in formal, encyclopedic language rather than in the language of the book. ✅
 * I've changed it to "unmarried" --Nicolecruz (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Upon the realization of the responsibility her service entails, she decides to kill them by using chloroform. - Unclear - she is horror-stricken, perhaps? Does Lavinia kill the patients or the birds? ✅
 * She kills the birds and I indicated this in the section now. Nicolecruz (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the "Lavinia" paragraph is totally incomprehensible.
 * The personified bird symbolically trades places with Lavinia who ends up being imprisoned in the corruption of the American dream. - You have not explained how she is connected to the American dream at all.
 * This still needs to be explained. Awadewit (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Washington officials ignore her plea, disregarding to wait for several days in order to wait for the president.  - What plea? I didn't even know she was waiting to see the president. ✅
 * plea to free her brother Isaac --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The conversation was made possible only by the assistance of a man, Dr. Norval’s friend, Mr. Sinclair. - Why are we now talking about Sinclair?
 * Lavinia then realizes that her beliefs in being able to voice her opinions equally with men were unrealistic - What? Now we are talking about some sort of feminist theme?
 * This feminist theme still needs to be expanded. Awadewit (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The third paragraph of the "Lavinia" subsection needs to be better integrated into the discussion of caged birds.


 * I have removed the character description of the Cackles, since they are barely mentioned in the plot summary.
 * Should I perhaps mention them more in the plot summary? The Cackles are minor characters however Ruiz de Burton uses their names to juxtapose images--Nicolecruz (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jbmurray can perhaps give you more guidance here. I haven't read the novel. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cackles will not be added. --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, the balance between the "Plot summary" and the "Characters" has improved dramatically. However, there are still some small clarifications that need to be made, most of which revolve around taking into the account the fact that the reader of this article will not be familiar with the history underpinning this novel or the novel itself (they are coming to this article for that information):
 * Her back story provides the initial impetus for the narrative and introduces its symbolism - It would be best to say what this initial impetus and symbolism is rather than rely on the reader to make the connections.
 * Jesse Alemán sees her situation as symbolic of the 80,000 Mexicans who were "orphaned" in the southwestern U.S. at the end of the Mexican-American War. - We need to identify Aleman for the reader - a small phrase describing her credentials. Also, this sentence needs to be expanded. What does "orphaned" mean - explain this to the reader unfamiliar with this period of history. What happened to these Mexicans who suddenly found themselves as part of the US?
 * Julie Ruiz suggests that "[Lola's] escape from Indian captivity in the Southwest symbolizes the cleansing of Mexican national identity from the 'stain' of U.S. imperialism during the Mexican War". - We need to identify Ruiz for the reader. Also, this claim needs further explanation for the reader unfamiliar with this hitory or the text.
 * The three paragraphs of the "Lola" subsection do not flow well together - they are more like bullet points. Try framing the entire discussion around race and seeing if that helps you unite the subsection. All three paragraphs deal with race in one way or another.
 * Dr. Norval is a prominent figure in New England. His influence and financial support provided positions in Congress for his brother-in-law Isaac and the Cackle brothers. - As this is the first the reader hears of the Cackle brothers, we need to briefly describe them.
 * It is unclear in the "Dr. Norval" section whether he really is a Southern sympathizer - at one point he is described has having "alledged sympathies" and at another he is described as a "Northern Democrat who has shown sympathies for the South".
 * He supports the Union but at the same time sees a hypocrisy that its democratic claim does not conceal. - What hypocrisy? This needs to be explained to the reader.
 * Mattie and Ruth represent the younger generation and Mrs. Norval represents the older, republican generation. - What does this mean, exactly? Why are Mrs. Norval's views on race republican?
 * The extensive details about Lola's racial status in the "Mrs. Norval" section seem more appropriate for the "Themes" section.
 * Mrs. Norval uses it to advance her family's social standing in the hopes of finding wealthier, more suitable matches for her daughters. She therefore embodies the idea of Manifest Destiny. - I don't understand this. "Manifest Destiny" is about the US acquiring land and spreading out all over the continent - how is Mrs. Norval's greed and her daughters' marriages related to this idea?
 * I have deleted the "Julian" subsection, as there was no analysis of his character.
 * Julian's dismissal from military service represents corruption and his relationship to Lola is significant to the story's racial politics. Julian is considered a major character and I will be adding him back after I do a lottle research —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecruz (talk • contribs) 08:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have copyedited this section a bit, but more analysis needs to be added to the later sections. Awadewit (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * During one of his sermons, he publicly alludes to Dr. Norval. - Why is this important? This fact needs to be tied to some claim or piece of analysis in the "Mr. Hackwell" section.
 * In the "Mr. Hackwell" section, the first and second paragraphs can be combined and revised. We do not need all of the details about opening of the will, etc. and some details are repeated here that are in the plot summary.
 * The information about Beecher in the "Mr. Hackwell" section is confusing - is Mr. Hackwell married? Also, this tidbit it just tacked on to the end of the section. Integrate it or delete it.
 * There is very little analysis of the Mr. Hackwell in the "Mr. Hackwell" section. We need more material from scholars that offers an interpretation of this character and less plot summary.
 * The birds symbolize Lavinia, who ends up being imprisoned in the corrupting influences of the American materialism. - It is unclear what Lavinia's connection to materialism is. This needs to be explained more.
 * Lavinia then realizes that her belief in being able to voice her opinions equally with men is unrealistic. - This is the first we hear of this feminist point of view. This needs to be explained in greater detail.

Genre
Nicole
 * The "Genre" section needs to be rewritten as a paraphrase, rather than just a quote. Also, it needs to be expanded. Apparently more research needs to be done here.
 * This section still needs a great deal more work. For example, the article should explain what a historical romance is and what about the novel makes it a historical romance. What do you think about combining this section with the "Style" section? Awadewit (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Style
Anna
 * "Who would Have Thought It? satirizes American politics, an emerging consumerism, and dominant representations of the nation itself, often through a mocking of divisive political discourses and practices of the period set against the backdrop of idealized constructs of domesticity and nationhood." - This needs to be explained to the reader - How does the satire work? Show us some examples that the scholar hightlights. How does Ruiz de Burton "mock divisive political discourses"?
 * Awadewit, for Irony and Satire, should it be a general overview of how American politics is portrayed in the book? Or should I go into more specifics with examples referring to specific characters as well?--Annac89 (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would start with a general overview and then offer specific examples that illustrate the general claims. Does that make sense? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In the "allegory" section, it is not clear what the organizing allegory of the novel is.✅--Annac89 (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruiz de Burton shows that the doctrine of Manifest Destiny seems to be built upon hypocrisy, ignorance and most importantly greed above all other noble aspects of American expansion. - Extremely confusing, as this sentence seems to suggest that hypocrisy, ignorance, and greed are noble. ✅

The expansion of this section looks good, but we need to clarify some of the points a bit more for the reader unfamiliar with this material:
 * The preachers, Mr. Hackwell and Mr.Hammerhard, the neighbors, the Cackles, and other political figures in Who Would Have Thought It? are unmasked to break down ideological myths of American political rhetoric by contrasting the expectations of the nation with the reality of their actions. - The section needs to explain the contrast more effectively - it explains the reality of the characters (greed, self-interest, etc.), but it does not explain the contrasting expectations. In doing this, you will make the irony and the satire clearer to the reader. Right now, it is a bit hard to pick out what is specifically satiric in this portrayal, for example.
 * I have included what the expectations include, I hope this made the contrasting clearer!--Annac89 (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, clarification is the key to improving this section. Awadewit (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph does not really discuss allegory (generally, a one-to-one symbolic relationship). Does this material really belong in an allegory section?
 * In addition, Mrs.Norval embodies the republican motherhood, a concept of raising children to support the moral beliefs of republicanism - This is not a good description of republican motherhood, as readers will confuse it with the contemporary republican party. You need to indicate what aspects of republican motherhood she embodies.

Themes
Nicole
 * The "Themes" section is poorly organized.
 * Two of the three sentences in "Class" have more to do with race and identity.
 * Much of the second paragraph of the "Religion" subsection also seems like it belongs in a "Race and identity" section.


 * Awadewit, I am having trouble with this section. Race, identity, class and religion seem to overlap. How do you think I should go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolecruz (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In looking at your research, you have to decide what is the core idea the author is addressing. For example, an author may be discussing both race and class, but the core topic of the essay is about race and the author uses class to complicate their discussion of race. Then you would know that such an essay was primarily about race. Does this make sense? To me, the second paragraph in the "Religion" section seems to be more about race than religion, but only you would really know that since you have read the research. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of the "Themes" section is made up of quotation (most of it unattributed in the text). These quotations need to be paraphrased - write this encyclopedia entry in your own words - write it for the general public. Translate the scholarly language into simpler language. Use quotations sparingly. Also, when you do use a quotation, be sure to attribute it in the text.
 * Be sure that all of the quotations will make sense to a reader unfamiliar with the novel or literary criticism. Awadewit (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced the "Wealth" section is necessary. This material does not seem as important as the rest.
 * I think wealth can be added to Class Nicolecruz (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This section requires some clarification. If the editors are having trouble understanding the sources, which might be causing some of the problems here, I suggest they consult with Jbmurray, who can help them with scholarship: These changes will take some work, as they will require you to reread the sources. Awadewit (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * During the nineteenth cetury, two opposing cultural markers differentiated gente de razon (people of reason) from gente sin razon (people without reason) in Spanish colonial California - What are the two markers? The section goes on to talk about race - what is the other one?
 * Doña Theresa's use of Indian labour and resources pertain to the indigenous exploitation during the Spanish colonization. - How does it pertain? The similarity between Dona Theresa and the Spanish is not clearly explained here.
 * The paradigm of gracias al sacar suggests that Mexicans and Californios can purchase their "whiteness" from the Spanish crown. In Lola's case, the use of Indian labor allows Lola to symbolically purchase her whiteness from Mr. Sinclair, Dr. Norval's Northern banker. - What is gracias al sacar? This needs to be explained to the reader. How does Lola purchase her "whiteness" from Mr. Sinclair? The details of this example are obscured and therefore it does not make much sense.
 * Literary scholar Aleman suggests that Californio colonial mentality is similar to Anglo-American colonialism when it comes to fashioning whiteness by racializing and oppressing Others. - Is this supposed to be the Other?
 * However, "[g]oing from black to white, and seen as Indian and Spanish, Lola passes through various stages of racial identity- black, Indian, brown, 'spotted' white, and finally, 'pure' white. Lola's racial ambiguity thus draws on two competing codes: an Anglo American one that defines race as white or black, and a Spanish/Mexican caste system that recognizes multiple levels of hybrid racial identity." - You need to explain to the reader how this happens in the book. Use the examples that the scholar uses to show the changes, for example.
 * The paragraphs of the "Race" section are not well-connected - they need to flow together. Remember that you don't have to include every point you find in the secondary sources - just the ones that keep recurring.
 * The quote at the end of the first paragraph of the "Religion" section does not really tie in with the paragraph yet. What does savagery have to do with the ideas in this paragraph?
 * The last paragraph of the "Religion" section needs to be paraphrased - it has far too many quotations. Moreover, the paragraph should be expanded. Strict paraphrases of those quotations will not be enough to explain the ideas to a reader unfamiliar with this material.
 * it introduces women from the domestic sphere into political and public spheres - What women enter the public sphere?
 * The novel also parodies mid-nineteenth century family life. Even though Lavinia takes initiative and enters the political realm, for example, she is unable to voice her opinions because she is not taken seriously by the men at the White House. - This is not a parody of family life. Do you have a different example?
 * Although Ruiz de Burton has no problems with patriarchal values, she portrays women smarter, more generous and more action-oriented than they should have been at the time. - This is a strange sentence - "has no problems with" is colloquial and vague and what does "should have been" imply? Do you mean "than they were generally represented"?
 * Her novel critiques the inequality of women but at the same time she focuses on their sensitivity, morality and beauty. - How does the novel do this? Include the evidence from the secondary source.
 * The last quote in the "Gender" section, about male emasculation, needs to be paraphrased and worked in the paragraph seamlessly. Right now, it is just tacked on.

Reception
Anna
 * The "Reception" section should focus exclusively on the history of the book's reception (the criticism is the basis for the writing the article). So, for example, begin with how the book was reviewed in the nineteenth century. That should be the focus of this section. Follow its fortunes up until the present day. I think that more research will need to be done for this section.
 * Are there no nineteenth-century reactions? Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, the "Reception" section is a bullet-point list in prose. It needs to be written in prose with only a few quotations. The paragraphs need to flow together.


 * A publication of the 'Recovering the U.S. Hispanic Literary Heritage Project', it was originally published in 1872. This was a politically volatile time when the Reconstruction push for equal rights was being countered by an increasingly conservative tide. Racial and gender politics were hotly contested as the nation responded to the reality of free blacks and Victoria Woodhill pushed the sexual envelope to the limit with her advocacy of free love." - What was the project? What was Reconstruction? Who was Woodhill? Why is free love relevant? You have to explain the context of these events to the reader.
 * The Recovering US hispanic Literary Hertiage Project was a cooperative scholarly group created in 1990(consisting of several foundations to back it up) that focussed on recovering Hispanic literature since the 16th century.--Annac89 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The scenes and sections which are clearly racist have put Ruiz de Burton in a complicated position within contemporary Chicana and American literature because she is both the colonized and the colonizer." - You could talk more about the book's influence on contemporary literature, if there was such an influence. At least connect this sentence to the last paragraph more clearly, which discusses the book's rediscovery.
 * Is there any evidence that this book influenced any others? Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "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." ✅
 * These ideas should go in the "Themes" section somewhere. taken out this quote, might be used in themes instead--Annac89 (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Reception" section is much improved - it now flows much better and stays focused on the reception of the book. Here are some additional points:
 * After its publication in 1872, Who Would Have Thought It? remained relatively unnoticed for over one hundred years in American literary studies - It remained unnoticed on the American literary scene or in literary studies? These are two different things.
 * It remained unnoticed in literary studies.--Annac89 (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * After its publication in 1872, Who Would Have Thought It? remained relatively unnoticed for over one hundred years in American literary studies, demonstrating the lack of influence that Mexican-Americans had in the making of American history. - Mexican-Americans have influenced American history - do you perhaps mean "American literature" or "classic American literature"?
 * I meant to say that (according to Jesse Aleman) the lack of influence demonstrates her exclusion from American literary history and more generally, it demonstrates "the marginalization of Mexican Americans in the construction of American history". I will rephrase this to clarify.--Annac89 (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work on this! Awadewit (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, her interpretation of the loss of Mexico's claim over Northern California demonstrates her discontent with American ideals of the time. - I'm unsure what this means.
 * Caught between her newfound position in the Californian elite and her background as a Californian native, her novel was not welcomed by American literary studies nor Chicana literary studies. - This suggests that her novel was not welcomed by American literary studies or Chicana literary studies in 1872 when the novel was published, but American literary studies and Chicana studies didn't exist then.
 * These scholars describe Ruiz de Burton's work "as an object lesson in the complexities and contradictions of resurrecting literary history". - Can you expand on why the novel is an "object lesson"?

General prose comments

 * All quotations from scholars need to be attributed - the first time a scholar is introduced we use their first and last name and a small description of them such as "Latin American literature scholar". After that we just use their last name.


 * Who Would Have Thought It should be described in the "literary present" whenever possible.


 * This article is underlinked - be sure to link key terms: people, places, and events. See WP:MOSLINKS.


 * I did some copyediting as I was reading. While this article requires extensive copyediting, I wouldn't focus on that right now. I would focus on expanding, rewriting, and cutting sections as needed first. After those tasks are complete, we can work together on the copyediting.

While this review may appear disheartening and harsh (comments I hear from my own students every day!), I feel obliged to point out that if you diligently work through this list, the article will be much better as a result and well on its way to FAC at the end. At the top of the review, I have included a list of the reasons why this article currently fails the GA criteria. If you are only interested in getting the article to GA, you can focus on those things. However, if you are interested in taking the article beyond that, which I believe is entirely possible, I have given you an extensive review which will help you do that. I am putting this article on hold for a week. If you have any questions about my comments, please post them here and I will be more than happy to clarify them. Awadewit (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this very helpful review, Awadewit! Students, as she says... don't be disheartened.  You have a roadmap towards GA status, though there is a fair way to go...  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, we will use it as a guideline! --Nicolecruz (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you guys talking off-wiki about how to improve the article or something? It seems odd to me that these little checks are just appearing on the review and there is no real conversation going on between the editors. Awadewit (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm contributing on-wiki only here, but reformatted the ticks without checking them. I imagine Anna and Nicole actually talk to each other, but that is not something to be discouraged! Geometry guy 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to make sure that conversation is going on somewhere - I hope I wasn't discouraging it! Awadewit (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anna and I have been talking mostly after class but we now realize the importance of also talking on-wiki. Thanks for the reminder Jbmurray.--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent and ec:) I'm sure that Annac89 and Nicolecruz are talking off-wiki (and no bad thing). But guys, note the importance also of communicating with your reviewers and others on-wiki. Editing on Wikipedia (and collaborative writing in general) very much relies on communication and conversation. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us, we discuss off-wiki quite often but now we will keep in mind to converse on-wiki as well :) --Annac89 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of work has been going into the "Plot summary" section and it looks much better, but don't neglect the other sections! Awadewit (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to extend the GA "hold" on this article, but I do need to know if the editors are planning on continuing to improve it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please extend the GA "hold" on the article. I have been working on the plot summary but have now moved onto the lead. I think we need a little more time to tweak things and introduce unadorned quotes. We want to see this article to GA status (and hopefully FA as well) Thank you for providing us an detailed "roadmap" as Jbmurray calls it! --Nicolecruz (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see where we are after another week, than, shall we? Awadewit (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I think we will be able accomplish a lot in a week! --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for extending the hold! We definitely need this week to fix up a few of the sections. I am still working on STYLE and will be attending CRITICISM and RECEPTION very soon.! --Annac89 (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked/am checking over your article for reference issues...and it's not too bad. :) I added a couple of fact templates to show you the 2 places I saw that needed refs...but overall...
 * WHOA! It's been awhile since I've looked at this article, and man! You guys are doing a great job; keep it up! =) — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? Some of the most difficult tasks haven't been tackled yet, such as expanding and rewriting the "Genre" and "Reception" sections. If research headway is being made on these areas, perhaps a small update could be posted to the review. Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will be writing on genre (and will have to do more research) and Anna will be writing on reception. Nicolecruz (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have introduced Reception but some research is still needed. I have taken out a quote in reception that should belong in the Themes section and i am currently expanding on why it was unnoticed for 100+ years. Soon(tomorrow) i will write about its republication by Sanchez and Pita and how it was received after the repub..--Annac89 (talk) 10:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Nicole! The Genre section needs some attention :)so I'll be working on the Genre over the next little while--Annac89 (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can extend the GA hold for another week, as you are both actively working on the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Nicolecruz (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, despite the work put into this article by the editors during the last month, I am going to have to fail it for GA. Some of the major concerns that I have outlined have still not been addressed, namely the lead, the expansion of the "Genre" section, the misrepresentation of Aleman's article, and other smaller confusing sentences and paragraphs in the article. Awadewit (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)