Talk:Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories

Plan
This is our plan.... We've divided up the sections from the wikipedia page on how to write a book review article.

Katie: Lead section, Background

Jacqui: Publication History, plot introduction, plot summary, characters, infobox--Katie322 (talk) 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Esmeralda: Major Themes, Style, Reception, Film/TV/Theatrical adaptations, Image


 * Well done on getting a plan together. As Wikipedia doesn't like talk pages that don't have corresponding articles, I've now started the article itself...  which means you have five days to work it up into something that you can submit to DYK.  Good luck!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gals! I've started the lead, background, and references. It's definitely going to need some editing and revision so feel free...but it's a start! I like Esmeralda's idea for the hook for the DYK. Add some more info to the article when you can. (I looked at the edit screen on other articles to see how they formatted certain things). It's tough to get the hang of, but we'll get it :)--Katie322 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The structure looks good to me. Don't worry about fine detail and technology just yet. Right now there are only two priorities: adding content to the article, and finding reliable sources to use as references for that content. A blank page can be intimidating, so scribble on it! There are plenty of people who will help out, but for DYK you have to move fast on content! Good luck! Geometry guy 08:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've cleanup the article quite a bit, it's looking even better! I can't wait to feature this. &mdash; Sunday   [speak+]  11:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to make this plan a little more detailed, and more a series of "to dos." 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) 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Our detailed plan:
 * First and foremost, have a detailed bibliography for referencing up on the talk page by Monday, Sept. 29, midnight.
 * As for individual sections...


 * ✅lead section needs much more added in the way of introducing the article and what will be found there within (this may be easier to flesh out as the article progresses).
 * ✅background should include more information on Cisneros' perspective concerning men, as this is a main theme throughout her book.
 * No publication section yet. Submit any interesting points about the publication. (In the event that there are none, add basic publication info to the 'Publication Date' section.
 * Split chapters into three categories for the plot summary: child, adolescent, woman. Give a brief overview of some of the main characters in each of these sections, their similarities, and how they contribute to the book's themes.  Book reviews providing this type of information should be utiilized. (Plot intro will not be used)
 * The 'Characters' section should expand briefly upon the stereotypes and themes mentioned in the plot summary. ✅ More info added, if need be, as plot summary grows.
 * Major themes: expand on the themes mentioned in Plot Summary section. (themes must be backed up by reliable sources).
 * Style: explain the mechanics behind Cisnero's styles, as she uses many different page lay-outs and writing styles in this book. Try to find reviews which say 'why' she used these particular styles.
 * Describe how the novel was received in the Reception section. This includes reviews from critics and/or interesting figures in society.
 * Film adaptation: mention any adaptation's into 'dramatic media' ✅
 * make sure to REFERENCE EVERYTHING!!!
 * Infobox ✅
 * Image of bookcover ✅ -Group meeting to see if we want to add any more pictures (ie: the REAL Woman Hollering Creek)
 * Add publication dates
 * Add original media types
 * Add to 'List of Novels'
 * Add Categories to bottom of the page
 * November 10th: submit for good article nomination...make appropriate edits
 * November 26th: submit for feature article nomination...make appropriate edits

DYK
Everything looks good so far. You should now be thinking about your "Did You Know" hook. You'll see I just added Chicano literature to T:TDYK. You'll want to add yours here and then watchlist the page as other editors go over what you've contributed, checking that it fits the rules. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Katie, I think I might have deleted some of the references...ahh Im just getting used to this whole editing thing...can you check that out for me/us? --Jacqui Nicole (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey girls...WE DID IT!! Check out our DYK on the main page :) Now time for a 'good article' nomination...haha.  Great job!  --Katie322 (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

accuracy in quotation
You need to be especially careful about quotations, and ensure that you are accurate and have provided all the information you can.

Here you have a quotation in which there is no final quotation mark, and there seems to be some error of transcription: "“in woman hollering creek (1991) the female characters break out of the molds assigned to them by the culture in search of new roles and new kinds of relationships. Cisneros portrays woman who challenge stereotypes and break taboos, sometimes simply for the sake of shocking the establishment, but most often because the confining stereotypes prevent them from achieving their own identity.[5]" I just checked this, and discover that the original is in fact: "“In Mango Street and in Woman Hollering Creek (1991), the female characters break out of the molds assigned to them by the culture in search of new roles and new kinds of relationships. Cisneros portrays woman who challenge stereotypes and break taboos, sometimes simply for the sake of shocking the establishment, but most often because the confining stereotypes prevent them from achieving their own identity.'[5]" The differences are small, but there should in fact be no differences. Be careful! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The subsequent quotations in that same section, from Brown-Guillory, were also inaccurate. Beware!  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reminder about this: Citations need page numbers. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Image
Ok so I added the image of Sandra Cisnero's book cover, but it turned out to be huge! I thought I had saved the smaller version of it, and that's the one that I uploaded with under the Non-free use media rationale. Is there any way to make the image smaller? --Jacqui Nicole (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (For some bizarre historical reason, the tradition at Wikipedia is to add new comments to the bottom of the talk page, not the top!) You can control the size of an image by adding the width in pixels. Alternatively the word "thumb" causes the width to be set to user preferences (default 180 px).
 * However, you may want to upload a lower resolution version of the image to be sure that the fair use criteria are met. I suggest opening the image in an image editor (Gimp, Photoshop etc.) and reducing the resolution by half (227 x 327 seems more reasonable), then uploading the lower resolution image over the current one. Geometry guy 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the jpg by a png image of half the resolution. Sorry for deleting your upload, but you are less likely to run into complaints later this way. Geometry guy 20:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature
I don't think I'm adding my signature correctly... Do I add it to the edit summary box, or to the actual page that I made the edit on? And is the signature just 4 tildes or 2 dashes and 4 tildes? Thanks--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC) (is that signature right?)


 * Perfect! You add it (as you did here) to your comments on talk pages.  (I'm making an exception for the bibliography, because if we included the signatures there, it would soon become very cluttered.)  And people usually use two dashes along with the four tildes.  If you click the button (above the edit screen), that's what it'll add for you.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job!
This article is really moving on, and is jampacked with good sources. Well done! One thing you do need to get to fairly soon, however, is a plot summary... or rather, an account of at least some of the stories. Try to make this no more than 500 words.

But again, above all you guys have really made progress on this article! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Once more, good job by Katie322. Add a summary of the content of the book itself, and I think you're close to being able to put this in for a "good article nomination."  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've just upgraded this to C-class. It's probably very close to B-class if it weren't for the missing details on content. (See the Wikipedia grading scheme.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is close to B-Class and many WikiProjects would rate an article of this quality as B-Class. It is also nearly ready for good article nomination. One significant issue remaining is the lead (the part of the article before the table of contents). Please read the guideline on lead sections and rewrite the lead both to summarize the article and introduce the subject in about three paragraphs. If you cannot do both easily, it is a good sign that some work is needed on the rest of the article :-) Geometry guy 21:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. This article has been adopted by the FA-Team and I'm one of the editors watchlisting it on their behalf. We would like it to be featured, and will do all we can to help, except we can't find sources or add significant content. Good luck!

Madsen 2003
When citing an article in an edited book, we need to cite the article itself, rather than the book. Hence the references to Madsen 2003 need to be more specific. I'll try to get the info myself. Let's see... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade to B class
After I wrote the notes above, I looked through the B class criteria and I think you're there. So I've upgraded the article to B class; congratulations. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank-you so much for looking at our work, and taking the time to help us out!--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 03:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead
I've just done a rough copyedit of the lead. I fixed some grammar issues, removed some overlinking (USA and English language are presumed to be known terms to anyone who can access Wikipedia), and wikilinked Chicana (certainly a familiar term to your class, but not the world at large). While trying to fill out more of the infobox, I found that although the ISBN and cover image are from the same edition of the book, that doesn't appear to be the first edition. It is preferred to describe the first edition, but not required—however, we definitely must not call the image 'first edition' if it is not. The true first edition seems to be this one:. Maralia (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to tidy the lead when Maralia stepped in, for instance to remove the word "renowned", which is what we call a peacock term. The lead looks pretty good now. See here for advice on overlinking, although the body of the article looks more like it is underlinked to me. I spotted some weasel words there ("Some critics say") and our guidelines on words to avoid may help to get the idea of "encyclopedic style". It is very different from an essay or term paper style. Geometry guy 16:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is being such a great help (and keeping us busy! haha). Thank-you very much! I was just wondering about the process of "copyediting". I looked it up on wikipedia, and I'm assuming it means that you have edited the issues you've seen by correcting them directly in the article. I'm just making sure that there isn't a separate 'copyedit' page that we should be searching out. --Katie322 (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Copy-editing means revising for clarity and concision, because our first drafts are seldom the best. Geometry guy 01:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope that I copyedited the correct way by simply deleting from your post what I thought was (ironically) unnecessary. If this IS correct, then this is what Maralia did earlier with our article (?)--Katie322 (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehe. Indeed.  As for what Maralia did, you can take a look here.  Copy-editing is revising a test to ensure that it not only has no grammatical and spelling errors, but also that it is as clear and unambiguous as possible.  Especially as you get closer to featured article status, you will repeatedly need to go over your prose, revising it as much as possible so that it is as well-written as possible.  Here is a long, but very useful, page with advice on how to improve your prose.  Of course, copy-editing is not only an issue on Wikipedia: with anything that you write, the more revisions, the better.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The great thing about Wikipedia is that it does not matter if your prose is not perfect the first time. You can fix it, and other editors can fix it. Copyediting is also about making prose as concise as possible. I've copyedited further my post above. Geometry guy 08:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so all is clear. Gguy's text has now been changed from:
 * No it just means that on some occasions when you write something down on paper for the very first time, you don't always write it in the most optimal manner. Or you might tend to use some unneeded words. Or you might even say the same thing in more than one similar way. However, I've deliberately written this reply in a way that might need a certain amount of copyediting. Can you remedy the unnecessary elaborations I have tried to make in explaining the notion of copyediting?
 * to (first copy-edit, by Katie322):
 * No it just means that on some occasions when you write something down on paper for the very first time, you don't always write it in the most optimal manner. However, I've deliberately written this reply in a way that might need a certain amount of copyediting. Can you remedy the unnecessary elaborations I have tried to make in explaining the notion of copyediting?
 * to (second copy-edit, by Gguy):
 * No, it just means that the first draft is not always the best. This reply needs copyediting. Can you fix it?
 * to (third copy-edit, by me):
 * No. Copy-editing means revising for clarity and concision, because our first drafts are seldom the best.
 * How's that? ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding earlier. Your version shows that encyclopedic prose can be both to the point, and also beautiful. It may be worth noting, however, that this is more than a copyedit (probably it isn't worth noting, but I'm noting it anyway): the self-referential part of the original post has been eliminated, because it is now false. Removing incorrect or out-of-date information is also an important part of editing, but it isn't copyediting. Geometry guy 22:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

General comments from Awadewit
This is an excellent start! My comments may seem a bit overwhelming, but I am working on the assumption that this group eventually wants to reach FAC:


 * ✅We generally try to avoid quotations in the lead since it is supposed to be a summary of the article. Readers who look at only the lead rarely care about one reviewer's take on the book, for example, so it is important that any quotations in the lead be exceptionally important or exceptionally representative of the views in the article.


 * ✅The last paragraph of the lead is vague - give the reader more of a hint of the what the "daring stylistic techniques" are and what some of the "distinct literary fashions" that she uses are.


 * Infoboxes are optional on Wikipedia. You might think about whether this infobox is actually necessary. In what way does it help the reader?
 * My opinion on the info box is that it offers factual information at a glance. I've often used Wikipedia to check dates of books and how long they are, and having an organized reference at the beginning of an article is very helpful.  We actually have more information in our infobox than the one for Pride and Prejudice, and Anna Karenina 's is lengthier only with it's translation information (as Woman Hollering Creek has not been translated), to give a few examples of famous books.  So I do think that this info box would help the reader; however, I'm new to wikipedia as an article writer and am not sure what really constitutes a good info box.  Above all, I believe that we would need to keep the cover image if the info box were to go...readers love seeing covers of the book, I know I do. --Katie322 (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dates should be in the lead (I've added it) and as to length, that is deceptive, of course. Pride and Prejudice was originally published as a three-volume novel. That sounds a lot longer than it is, though. Page-size and type-size determines the number of pages. :) However, as long as you have an argument and all of the information is indeed factual, let's keep it. Awadewit (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅In The Nation, Patricia Hart remarks, "anger repressed bursts the seams of life for Cisneros’ female characters, who struggle valiantly to make something beautiful from the ugly fabric fate has given them to work with". - It is not clear to me why this sentence is necessary in the "Background" section.


 * ✅The third and fourth paragraph of "Background" need to be rewritten, one to focus on Cisneros's biography and one to focus on Chicano feminism. Because many readers will not know what Chicano feminism is, you will need to define this term in fairly simple language. Try to avoid quoting any scholars! :)
 * Would someone be able to look at my re-wording of Chicano Feminism and see if it's okay? Or is it too simple?--Katie322 (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, okay, now I understand what you meant by not quoting any scholars in the definition...I hope that my new version suffices.--Katie322 (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅The "Plot summary" section needs to be entirely rewritten. Currently, it uses quotations from critics to explain the overarching themes of the stories. You need to describe the plot of each story, that is, you need to describe what happens in each story - the narrative arc of the stories.


 * ✅Is the "Characters" section necessary? I'm wondering if the information in this section isn't really a gender theme.
 * ✅Character section has been reformated--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, the "Themes" section seems to be a list of the research you have uncovered. The writing needs to be more structured. So, for example, you need to figure out what are the themes that scholars return to repeatedly in their discussions of Cisneros's work and create subsections for those and then write individual paragraphs on those topics (perhaps "Gender" and "Relationships"?).✅


 * In the "Style" section, when you include claims about how Cisneros writes, it is a good idea to include quotations from the collection of short stories itself that the scholars used to make their points, so that readers can see how that writing works. For example, how does the third-person narration work? "✅


 * Madsen also commented that Cisneros uses "the strategies described in post-colonial theory as 'counter-discourse' to engage and deconstruct the oppressive cultural narratives that are a legacy of Mexican America's colonial past". - Whenever a complicated idea like postcolonial theory arises in an article, it has to be explained to the reader!"✅


 * I'm sensing that more research could help you flesh out this article more, but Jbmurray will be able to give you better advice on that than I.


 * One noticeable problem with the prose in this article is the ubiquity of quotation - far too much of the article is quoted. Try to write the article yourself, rather than relying on the words of others. Quote very sparingly - no more than once per paragraph, say.
 * I have not said much regarding sentence-level prose issues, because I think that the editors should focus on re-organizing and fleshing out the article first, but this article will require extensive copyediting before any nominations take place (as all articles do). Once the bulk of the article is in place, we will all pitch-in with the copyediting.

I hope that these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

paraphrasing
It's true, as observed by others on this talk page, that you need to put material from quotations in your own words. But be careful as you paraphrase that you do not distort the original source. In this paraphrase, for instance, we should note that "gender relationships and culture" are not at all the same things as "feminism and cultural imperialism." Is this really an accurate paraphrase, that preserves the meaning of the original author?

Paraphrasing is not always an easy skill to pick up. But there are resources out there to help you: see here, for instance. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit - part the second
At Katie322's request here, I have rereviewed this article. Much has improved - well done! However, there is still much to be done.


 * Katie let me know that all of you are still working on the paraphrase problem. The overabundance of quotation is still a problem in the article, but as everyone knows about it, let's move on.


 * ✅The collection reflects Cisneros's multicultural background of being raised in a country that is not quite her own, but the only one she truly knows. - Fluffy and vague - Can you explain this sentiment in language that is more specific and precise?


 * ✅Cisneros adds an obvious flavor of feminism to the stories, yet produces a feeling of sensitivity to the universal reality of immigrant life. - The "yet" does not make sense here - what is the connection between the feminism in the stories and the "universal reality of immigrant life"?


 * ✅obvious flavor of feminism - Usually we try to avoid saying anything is obvious in case it isn't to the reader (besides, from the descriptions of the feminine cliches, it is unclear how the stories are feminist). What is a "flavor of feminism"? This phrase is awkward.


 * ✅a feeling of sensitivity to the universal reality of... - wordy - Do we need all of these prepositional phrases?


 * ✅The legend of La Llorona (Spanish for "weeping woman") is a ghost story found in Mexico and Texas. Woman Hollering Creek, a body of water just off Interstate 10 in Texas, is part of that same myth. - Very awkward beginning to the "Background" section - explain to the reader why they are being told this information (perhaps this would be the place to mention the title connection?). Also, try to make these sentences flow together better.


 * ✅Cisneros takes this tale, which has also been found slightly modified in Aztec, Greek, and Spanish cultures, and incorporates it into her work. - I would suggest moving the information about the myth's multicultural origins earlier in the "Background" section - focus this sentence on how Cisneros uses it.


 * ✅The title of the short story collection is taken from the story "Woman Hollering Creek", which focuses on a woman who is physically abused by her husband and feels drawn towards the nearby creek, but finds help from two strangers before she is led to do anything drastic. - Tie the Cisneros story to the myth more explicitly. Show the reader why you are discussing this story in the context of the myth.


 * ✅The paragraphs in the "Background" section have no transitions between them. You either need to create transitions or create subsections.


 * ✅The second paragraph of the "Background" section does not adequately describe Cisneros's immigrant background. Moreover, it covers two topics: her immigrant background (first sentence) and her experience as a woman (rest of paragraph). Divide the paragraph into two paragraphs, each focusing on a single topic. You can integrate some of the Madsen material into the paragraph about Cisernos's experience as a woman and how that affected her writing.


 * ✅Lucy's home is described as a typical low-income, Mexican-American family, in which the overworked mother is busy with her many children and the father is rarely around. - I'm a little worried about this statement - why are we saying that this is the "typical low-income, Mexican American family"? Do we have a source for that? (I noticed this sentence was only sourced to the book.)


 * ✅Ixchel throws caution to the wind in her desire to be romanced by someone with alleged Mexican roots, only to be disappointed by the reality of having fallen in love with a Mexican-American serial killer. - "throws caution to the wind" is vague - What happens in the story? What is her motivation?


 * ✅The fourth paragraph of "Plot summary" is not a plot summary - this material belongs in the "Themes" section.


 * ✅This section will discuss the main characters in three of the aforementioned stories from the plot summary as well as the three major feminine archetypes highlighted by Cisneros in the last section of this book that represent Mexican womanhood; "the passive virgin, the sinful seductress, and the traitorous mother." - Ew! Let's try to be a bit more interesting, shall we? "I will now proceed to section 2, subsection B of this lecture...." Make the reader want to go on!


 * In the "Characters" section, more needs to be said about Lucy and Ixchel than is said about them in the "Plot summary".


 * ✅Clemencia is the Chicana protagonist in "Never Marry a Mexican", who captures the identity of the historical figure La Malinche, an indigenous woman who befriended the Spanish Conquistadors in the 1500s, and is "doomed to exist within a racial and class-cultural wasteland, unanchored by a sense of ever belonging either to her ethnic or her natal homeland". - What does "captures the identity" mean? Who is "doomed to exist with a racial...wasteland"? The sentence is a bit ambiguous.


 * ✅Chayo, a character who writes the last note in the story “Little Miracles, Kept Promises” - What does "writes the last note" mean?


 * ✅Chayo, a character who writes the last note in the story “Little Miracles, Kept Promises”, explains the challenges of living as a modern Chicana and of leaving her Mexican heritage in attempts to redefine her role as a woman. - Does Chayo actually explain anything? The "in attempts to redefine her role as a woman" is a bit vague and tacked on to the end of the sentence.


 * ✅"Cleofilas neither drowns nor abandons her children. Instead, she saves them, and herself, by drawing on resources that come from both sides of the border." - What resources? This needs to be explained in more detail.


 * ✅Try to start out the "Themes" section with a general sentence or paragraph that describes the material to come - a "roadmap" or "signpost" for the reader. It helps the reader to know a bit about what is to come.✅


 * ✅One of the major themes in the book is the social role of women. - This is a weak topic sentence - any paragraph about any theme could begin "one of the major themes is..." - Try to make it specific to this theme and this book.


 * ✅An example of this is Cleófilas, who by coming to the United States learns that life is very different from those she saw in the telenovelas. She learns there is more to woman than being a wife and a mother, that there are more possibilities that she can pursue while she still remains faithful to her religious beliefs - What are these "more possibilities"? Why is remaining faithful to her religious beliefs important? This bit of information seems strangely inserted here. Explain its relevance to the reader.
 * NOTE: I changed this quote completely as I also didn't see its relevance. It's welcome to be revised again if need be.--Katie322 (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅Another theme of the book is that of conflicting love and failed relationships between man and woman and also between mother and daughter. - "Another" is a weak transition - try to connect the paragraphs together. Perhaps the topic of women or gender would work?


 * ✅*The second paragraph of "Themes" needs an example from the stories to illustrate it.


 * ✅After the experience of growing up within two cultures, Cisneros was able to combine both ethnicities, American and Mexican, throughout the short stories, and develop a major theme of hybridity - wordy


 * ✅*The third paragraph of "Themes" needs an example.


 * ✅**The one-sentence paragraph of "Themes" needs to be expanded - what is the feminism and cultural imperialism in these stories? The feminism of these stories is alluded to several times in the article, but never explained.


 * For example, her narrative point of view almost continually changes, sometimes using first person, as we see in the story “Little Miracles, Kept Promises”, and sometimes third person, for example in “La Fabulosa: a Texas Operetta”. - Why does she use first-person in the one story and third-person in the other? Does Marsden say?


 * ✅[added NY Times book review]"Reception" section needs to be expanded. What did reviewers in publications like the LA Times and New York Times say about this when it was released? We want to know what critics who review literature thought about it.
 * Guys, let me echo Awadewit's note here. The "Reception" section is, I think, the weakest in the article as a whole.  It needs developing; there are a couple of very short (one-sentence) paragraphs; and it could do with rewording and copy-editing.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅According to the Sandra Cisneros article, "in 1991, she had received the Paperback Book Club New Voices Award, the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award, and the Lannan Foundation Literary Award for her book "Woman Hollering Creek"." - Can we find some sources to verify this information?

I hope these comments are uesful. Please let me know if something is unclear or if I can help in any way. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A hello from the Sandra Cisneros Team
Hey Woman Hollering Creek Team, it's Heather here. I checked out your article today and just wanted to point out that Cisneros was born in Chicago but has been living in Texas for a while now. So maybe San Antonio-based would be more accurate than Chicago-based. Heathermary (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Fitts citations
Please double-check the citations to Fitts p. 11. I just checked a couple of them, and had to change them as not all are from that page. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up Jon! I checked out the rest of pg 11 Fitts quotes and there was one more which didn't belong there.  I think what happened was we only looked at the one LONG page of the article and not the page numbered pdf version.  oops. --Katie322 (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!
It seems you beat us to the punch on passing a GA article! Oh bollocks, and I was looking forward to that... keg of coke? hah!

Any who, I took a second to read through your article and enjoyed it thoroughly! That being said, considering my disdain for some literature, makes it a great compliment. Congrats! :-) FoodPuma 13:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the high praise! No worries, I'm sure that we can work out some sort of sharing arrangement for whichever type of 'keg'/'six pack' arises ;) haha! --Katie322 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Culturally challenged
The author of this page makes at least two false assumptions: one is the Mexican-Americans are immigrants, and the other is that Mexico is not 'America.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.73.71 (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)