Talk:Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Review

I am reviewing this article and will post detailed comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Detailed review points

This is a generally well-written and informative article about an interesting writer. There are some rough edges, and a fair number of minor points that need atention:-

• General point
  •  Done Story titles should be italicised, rather than put in quotes, for example One Holy Night, not "One Holy Night"

• Lead
  •  Done umlaut required over the "i" in "naïve”" – as is done later in the article
  •  Done fix typo in final line – "each story"

• Background
  •  Done Repetition of "always" should be avoided, I suggest by removing the one in the second line.
  •  Done Is "on account of gender" necessary, when you have identified her as a single daughter among seven children?
  •  Done Not sure about "enough siblings to go round". Sounds informal and non-encyclopaedic – suggest rephrase.
  •  Done "After many years of writing, Cisneros now develops..." As the book was published in 1991, "now develops" is inappropriate. Perhaps just dropping the "now" would work, though I’m not sure – perhaps: "had by 1991 developed..."?
  •  Done "She doesn’t appear..." is definitely non-encyclopaedic. Should be "does not"
  •  Done "Cisneros developed this tale..." In instances like this, it’s OK to use the present tense. For example, we might say, in literary criticism, "George Eliot uses water-imagery", or in religios studies, "The Bible says..." Therefore, "Cisneros develops this tale..." is OK.

• Plot summary
  •  Done I suggest section heading should be "Plot summaries" as there is more than one plot.
  •  Done I got a little bit confused in this section. My understanding is that the book’s structure is three sections, entitled My Friend Lucy..., One Holy Night and There Was a Man, and that each section contains a group of short stories. Am I right? A little further down you refer to My Friend Lucy... as a short story. Is it a story or a group of stories?
    •  DoneJacqui and Esmeralda: do you think that something like: "...a short story titled the same as the section it is in..." should be added? okay, well I think that that is too wordy, but something like it? Or maybe when the sections are introduced, mention that there are individual stories with the same name?--Katie322 (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done In which section does the title story Woman Hollering Creekoccur?
    • • I can't see where you have said in which of the three sections the title story is to be found, likewise for the "Eyes of Zapata" story. This section is generally OK, but could be organised a bit more tidily, for example by summaising the plots in the order in which they appear in the book. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It looks like Jacqui has expanded and organized the plot summary section. I'm not sure which happened first: your comment or her editing. However, the section appears to be more coherent now (although I've read the book so it may be easier to understand). Could you let us know if it's still confusing? Thank-you. --Katie322 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        •  DoneI can see what Jacqui has done, and it helps a bit. But to me, there is still confusion in this section which needs sorting out. Rather than have you guessing what's on my mind, I've done a bit of experimenting with the section. What I've done is (1) reorganise the information in the opening paragraph so that facts are presented in order of their importance, and (2) combine the short fourth paragraph with the next, and altered a bit of the wording at the same time. My version of your section can be examined here. Don't treat my suggestions as instructions, but discuss them among themselves, and adopt them if you think they make the position clearer. Incidentally, your use of the word "vignette" is questionable - one of the stories is 29 pages long, far too long to be properly described as a vignette. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I like this version you've done. Organizing the first paragraph to talk about the sections first is a good idea, as well as linking the fourth paragraph to the next, as they are already linked by talking about the same stories. Our group will take a look and see what we can do with it. Thank-you for your effort on this point! --Katie322 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes I agree, thanks for suggesting those changes, sometimes when you look at something so long it's hard to see how to make it better so, I really appreciate it! I made the suggested edits...--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Why, in this plot summaries section, have you not dealt with the plot of the title story, nor made any reference to the longest, 29-page (or 28?) story, both of which I would have thought were of importance?
  •  DoneSmall point, but the longest story is 29 pages in the lead, and 28 pages here. Also, "28" should be numeric, not written out.

• Characters
  •  DoneFive characters are described in this section. There are, presumably, many more in the book. What were the reasons for selecting these particular five? Again I see nothing relating to the longest story in the book.
    • The reason for highlighting these 6 characters (I added one more) are:
      • I wanted to have at least one character from each of the three sections (Although Lucy and Ixchel are somewhat minor characters in the book, they provide a representative for the first and second sections.)
      • I wanted to include Clemencia, Cleófilas and Chayo because they represent the 3 female archetypes discussed throughout this article; those being : La Malinche, La Llorona and La Virgen de Guadalupe.
      • And finally I added the main character from "Eyes of Zapata" (the longest story), which I agree is necessary to the character section. --Jacqui Nicole (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  DoneThe descriptions could be expanded, to focus less on what these characters did in their stories, and more on the type of character they were. In this respect the first two, particularly Clemencia, are superior to the others.
    • • You should introduce this section of the article with an explanatory statement, something like: "The following are characters from each section, representing the female archetypes in the book". A further question (I'm not asking for action on this, but I'm curious): why no male character in your selection? I'd quite like to know how Cisneros presents males. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I ended up adding one male character from "One Holy Night", but bascially Cisneros doesn't really give a voice to many male characters in this book, and that is why almost all of the protagonists are females...--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Themes
  •  Done "There are many themes that we can find in the book..." introduces a personal voice which should be avoided. In this case the passive voice is necessary: "There are many themes found in the book..."
  •  DoneSuggest semi-colon after "book", delete "but", decapitalize Roles.
  •  DoneClumsy phrasing: "both ethnicities American and Mexican". "Both" is unnecessary; suggest simply "American and Mexican ethnicities"
  •  DoneShift comma after "short stories" to after "relationships"
  •  DoneCheck exactly where the Reichart quote begins. The opening quote marks look to be in the wrong place.
    • Please clarify: Does the Reichart quote begin before the story title, where the marks are now, or with the words "The female characters break out..." Brianboulton (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The Reichart quote DOES begin before the story title. The original quote begins: "...in Mango Street and in Woman Hollering Creek (1991) the female characters..." This is why the quote begins in our article as shown. Is it okay as is, with the lead-in: "Critic Mary Reichart observes that in Cisneros's previous work as well as "in Woman Hollering Creek (1991),..."?
  •  DoneSEE QUESTION BELOW--Katie322 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC) "...life is very different from those she saw in the telenovelas". "Life" is singular, "those" is plural. "Those" should be "that which". Same sentence, there is tense confusion, too: "life is...she saw". I suggest "she sees".
  •  DoneSecond para first line: I think there should be an "in" after "such as"
  •  DonePut a colon immediately after the story title and before the Brown-Guillory quote.
  •  DoneCitation [21] should be given immediately after the quotation, and again at the paragraph end if necessary.
  •  DoneThird para. Suggest start with "From" rather than "After", and lose comma after "two cultures". Also, last word of first sentence should be plural ("cultures")
  •  DoneGive a specific attribution to the long quote beginning "depicts the situation..."
  •  DoneTry to avoid ending the paragraph with a preposition.

• Style
  •  DonePersonal voice again: "As you read her book...you see that..." Suggest: "Reviewer Susan Wood suggests the reader sees that..."
  •  DoneWhy not use Madsen’s first name, as with other critics/reviewers, at first mention? (I’d like a word with her about the form of her quoted statement, but unfortunately that’s not possible!)
    • I've always felt that it is more professional to use only the last name, but I agree that just saying "critic Madsen" is a bit lacking, (although "critic Deborah L. Madsen" almost seems like a little too much). --Katie322 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
      • It's best to use full name at first mention, surname thereafter. Sometimes a surname alone (e.g. "Smith") would not identify the person. Brianboulton (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  DoneDeal with the citation required tag
  •  Done"Another unique aspect..." is editorial opinion, unless it can be specifically attributed, e.g. "According to XYZ, another unique aspect..."
  •  Done"A sometime poet": this phrase is dropped in a bit casually. Was she actually a poet in the sense of having poetry published? If so, this shoud be mentioned before now, perhaps in the lead.
    •  DoneI will look for a source which cites Cisneros as a poet and add it to either the lead or background. --Katie322 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  DoneLast single-sentence para looks like a bit of an afterthought, and would be better if absorbed into the main text of the section.

• Reception
  •  DoneFirst sentence is personal voice and editorial opinion. It’s also unnecessary – suggest it is deleted.
  •  Done"This is note worthy" is also opinion, and so is the sentence beginning "Thus having..." I suggest the para is reworded along the lines: “"usan Wood comments on the publication of the book by Random House: "Despite...etc"
  •  DoneSEE QUESTION BELOW--Katie322 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Second para: Comma after "published", mdash not hyphen in "...condition—a condition..."
  •  Done "Stavans" needs to be properly introduced, and identified as the person who made the preceding quote.
    • Stavans didn't actually make the preceding quote, so I introduced both him AND Prescott to clarify.
  • I recommend combining the two short paras at the end, possibly absorbing them into the main para above.
    •  DoneThe tager quote has been absorbed, but there is still a tiny point of research to be done concerning the Stavans quote on male stereotyping. --Katie322 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am putting the article on hold to enable the above points to be addressed. I see no problem with the article's promotion once this is done. I will check this page regularly, so if there are any queries, e.g. I haven't made myself clear above, leave a note here and I will pick it up. Leave a note on my talkpage when you have dealt with all the points. Brianboulton (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION: I've put all the story titles into italics and have left the section/segment titles in quotations (ie: "My Lucy Friend who Smells Like Corn", "One Holy Night", and "There was a Man, There was a Woman"). Am I correct in doing this? --Katie322 (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, you'll have to undo this: you had it right the first time. Only book titles (i.e. Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories) should be italicized; short-story titles (e.g. "Woman Hollering Creek") and section titles should be in quotation marks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  I do apologise. I seem to have misunderstood the MoS on italic usage. Sorry to have caused you unnecessary work! Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • No worries. --Katie322 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION: For your 4th suggestion to the background section, the sentence we had in the article was: "After many years of writing, Cisneros now uses Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories to explore the failed relationships of the female characters via their reactions to the men in their lives." I've altered it to what you said, but I'm just making sure that we're looking at the same sentence.--Katie322 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  Another apology - you never had 1991 in your text. All I really wanted you to do was to delete the "now" in your original sentence, and to consider whether "uses" should be "used", bearing in mind the book was written in 1991. Somehow my notes got scrambled into your text. Can I (very humbly) suggest you go back to your original version, except deleting "now", and replacing "uses" with "used", so the sentence reads: "After many years of writing, Cisneros used Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories to explore..." etc ? That is what I originally intended to suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Done and done. I figured that that's what had happened...thanks for the clarification. --Katie322 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION: For the 6th suggestion in the themes section, you mentioned disagreement between tense and number. I can't seem to find the sentence you were talking about which leads me to believe that we made an edit to it after you made your notes and before you posted your suggestions. The new version reads: "An example of this is Cleófilas, who had hoped for a better life after leaving her home in Mexico to live in the United States. The soap operas she had seen had led her to believe that her life was going to be a fairy tale. Instead, with a failing marriage and another child on the way she sees that her life is like a soap opera; a very sad soap opera." Are these sentences okay?

  Yes, fine except for the faux-dramatic emphasis at the end. I recommend you change this to something like: "...she sees that her life resembles only the saddest aspects of soap opera". Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION: For third suggestion on Reception section, what is an 'mdash'? haha, sorry...excuse my ignorance. :) --Katie322 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

  An mdash is a long dash, such as I have demonstrated in the review (condition—a condition). If you look at where this is typed in the edit window, you will see how this is created. Brianboulton (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION

I'm not sure how to order the characters or to explain their purpose in the character section...maybe you can help

• • The order the characters appear in the book are: Lucy, Chaq, Ixchel, Cleófilas, Clemencia, Inés, and Chayo
  • Lucy is a representative for the first section of the book
  • Ixchel and Chaq are representatives of the second section of the book
  • Cleófilas, Clemencia, Inés represent characters from 3 of the longest stories of the book which happen to be contained in the last section, and therefore I believe they are important and should be present in the character section.
  • Cleófilas, Clemencia, Chayo represent the 3 female archetypes, La llorona, La Malinche, La Virgen de Guadalupe

Do you have any suggestions for how to order the characters, and also how to introduce this section with an explanatory statement? I know you had suggested "The following are characters from each section, representing the female archetypes in the book" but not all of the female characters are representatives of these archetypes... Thanks so much!--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • The most logical thing would be to order them as they appear in the book – as per your list above. My suggestion for the intro statement was only meant as a "such as" example. A short sentence introducing them as a cross-section, or selection, of the book's main characters is all that is required. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I added an introductory sentence to the character sentence and then switched the order in the presentation of the characters. This way it coincides with the introduction in that the first three sections of the book are discussed, and then the female archetypes. Let me know what you think. Are there any other edits needed for the character section?--Katie322 (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• QUESTION: Hi Brian, I was reading through the book this morning and realized that our comment on the length of the stories may be misleading. We said: "...while "Salvador Late or Early" and "There Was a Man, There Was a Woman" each occupies a single page." These stories start halfway down one page (as per the lay-out of the chapters) and then finish halfway down the next page. I'm just wondering if it's misleading to say they are one single page when they are on two separate, PHYSICAL pages. The only story that is on one single, physical page is called "Bread"...should we change this or is it okay?--Katie322 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Not a point worth worrying about, but if you like, add the word "length" after "single page", so it reads: "...each occupies a single page length". Remember, the page layout in the edition you are reading may be different in other editions, but the stories will still be a page length. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review summary

I am ready to close the review now. Editors should continue to refine the text or consider other ways of improving the article, but as it stands now, it is obviously of GA standard. Congratulations - this is now officially a Wikipedia Good Article.

• The prose is of a good quality, lucid and interesting. There are no obvious MOS violations and the structure of the article is sound.
• The article is properly referenced to reliable sources
• The coverage is comprehensive, covering all aspects of the subject
• The article presents a neutral point of view
• The article is stable.
• There is a single image, of the book cover. It may be worth considering, for the future, if there are ways of increasing the images.

Final comment: I believe this may be the project's first GA, though I am sure that others will follow it. The quality of this article, and the obvious dedication of its editors, make me feel you could aim for it to be the project's first Featured Article. What I would suggest is that you take a little time, continue to nurse the article and look to improve it. Put it to Peer Review, where you will get valuable feedback by other experienced editors. Then take it from there.

Last of all, thanks for improving my knowledge of a writer that I knew little about before ("Shame on you", says my daughter). Good luck to you all. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Haha! It's nice to hear that your daughter is a Cisneros fan :) Thank-you for all your help Brian...it's been a pleasure. --Katie322 (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• I just wanted to thank you as well! You have been so very helpful, and it's exciting to see how far we've come!--Jacqui Nicole (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• --Anaoaks (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)thank you for all your help i'm very happy we made it to GA!