Talk:Facundo

Updated to-do list

Because this talk page has been rather busy, there's perhaps a danger of some of the points raised further up the page being missed. I've distilled the remaining outstanding issues into a new list below - hopefully I haven't overlooked any. Hope this helps in the final run-up to GA! EyeSerene^talk 09:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mike Christie's copyedit comments:

• I think all these have now been addressed?

Yes, I think those are all dealt with now. Mike Christie (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding sourcing issues from jbmurray:

• The Ball is not really a great source. You can tell this in part from her bibliography. But she does mention Shumway essay that looks useful: from Vol. 1 of The Cambridge History of Latin American Literature. I recommend you chase that up.

I have changed most of the Ball's references to Shumway's. Hope it is better now... Bessiec (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've had to add the Mann reference (but I was wrong to think that you hadn't consulted a 19th-century book!). NB you might want to be careful with this source for reasons that Kathleen Ross outlines in her introduction.
• NB I haven't been able to check Newton, Lynch, Gonzalez Echevarria, Carilla, Bravo.
• They are the agents of instability and chaos, destroying societies through their blatant disregard for humanity and social progress. Sorensen Goodrich 1996, p. 8. P. 8 of Sorensen G is not about gauchos, and not much about barbarism. She talks more about both on pp 10-11: I'd re-read those pages, and see what you can get out of them to put here.

should I put more information about this?--Mjlee27 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily more information, but what I'm suggesting is that you revisit pp. 10-11 Sorensen G and ensure that you have got what's most useful and important from her argument about barbarism. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• And you need to continue to be alert about the accuracy of your citations. I just discovered a quotation from Gonzalez Echevarria that was attributed to page 1 of his introduction, and is actually on page 2; and that is about the "dialectic" in the book, but this was transcribed as "dialect." Beware!

Sentence clarity per Michael Devore:

• I think these have now been addressed?

Every issue I noticed, including a couple of areas I had just come back to address per my previous post, has been cleaned up to GA+ standard. Nice work! -- Michael Devore (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments from EyeSerene following more copyediting:

• From Civilization and barbarism: "Sarmiento attacked Rosas through his book by promoting education and "civilized" status, while using political power to dispose of any kind of hindrance." This seems to be saying that Sarmiento was the one disposing of any kind of hindrance. Is this correct, or is this intended to be a criticism that Rosas behaved this way?

I've added a small part in order to clarify this meaning. It is quite confusing. Apologies T^T--Mjlee27 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Citation needed for a quote in Legacy (I've marked it in the text).

Found the page number ^^--Mjlee27 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• The Sorenson quote from Legacy ("early readers of Facundo were deeply influenced by the struggles that preceded and followed Rosas's Dictatorship, and their views sprang from their relationship to the strife for interpretive and political hegemony") may need checking to ensure it follows the original text.

I checked and I quoted exactly how it is in the book. Hope it makes sense ^^ --Mjlee27 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Another three down... EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I did a fairly major copyedit on the Legacy section. As usual, if you can proofread to make sure I haven't changed the sense of anything... :)

Fantastic job. You have done it again!! It's amazing to see how you are able to turn nothing into art! ^^ Thank you! --Mjlee27 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Art!! You're too kind (really!) :D EyeSerene^talk 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One more comment from Mike Christie after copyediting:

• "Since the book is criticizing the government, Rosas' dictatorship is seen as the main cause of all the problems in Argentina. As such, the context of barbarism and savagery that Sarmiento expounds is a function of Rosas' government and dictatorship." Would it be accurate to rephrase this as "Sarmiento sees Rosas' dictatorship as the main cause of Argentina's problems. The themes of barbarism and savagery that run through the book are, to Sarmiento, consequences of Rosas's dictatorial government."?

That is so much better! I'll change it right away. I think the meaning is clearer. Thank you!--Mjlee27 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One more done! Mike Christie (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I apreciate everything that you have done for us! I hope with can get the GA satus soon, what else we need? Thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hector Argene (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another pass

I'm going to try to do another pass this morning; I'll drop notes here as I find things to ask about.

• "Since the book is criticizing the government, Rosas' dictatorship is seen as the main cause of all the problems in Argentina. As such, the context of barbarism and savagery that Sarmiento expounds is a function of Rosas' government and dictatorship." Would it be accurate to rephrase this as "Sarmiento sees Rosas' dictatorship as the main cause of Argentina's problems. The themes of barbarism and savagery that run through the book are, to Sarmiento, consequences of Rosas's dictatorial government."?
• There's a citation needed tag in the Legacy section; I'd do that first because it could cause the GA nom to be failed quickly. From context it's probably taken from Ross or Sorensen Goodrich.

Striking; I see it's already in EyeSerene's list above. Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

-- More as I find things. Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the above issue is the only one I needed to ask about. This article has come a long way very quickly. I'm going to strike it above, and move it to the Updated to do list section above, to make it easier for the editors.

I went through the GA criteria just now to see what else I could spot, and the only significant change that led to was the addition of a paragraph on publication history to the lead. I think the article is now in good shape and has an excellent chance of passing GA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I be so bold as to suggest that this go straight to FAC after continued refinement in the writing? It should meet all the criteria. –Outriggr § 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Not sure if the writers here want to try FAC, but I do see the need for more work on the article. I'm poor at keeping specific lists as I copyedit, but...

• by the time I reached "Themes", what really hit me was the repetition. I've been barbarically bruised by the repeated mention of barbarism vs civilization, and despite the repetition, I feel this theme is not explored in enough depth—or perhaps it would be deeper if the existing text on the theme was brought closer together in the article.
• as prof mentions, "Genre and style" is slim. Is there more that can be said about how Sarmiento writes?

Themes—specific items

• "Sorensen" is not the full last name of the ref, but is used that way in the text
• "The government decided to decipher the message, and on learning the translation, said,... " -- hows does the government "say", much less in a colloquial-sounding quotation?

I can go back to earlier sections of the article and provide more feedback if the writers are still participating here. It's a very good article and an interesting topic, especially being a work of "creative non-fiction". –Outriggr § 04:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd hoped we had got that repetition sorted out, but obviously not :P It's been a fairly constant issue, so if you've got any suggestions...? I'm not sure whether Bessiec, Mjlee27 and Hector Argene will be back either (they've already gone above and beyond the call of duty to get to this point!), so beyond continuing to improve the text I don't really see what more we can do here. EyeSerene^talk 20:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

the sections themes indeed is a problematic section. Deeply apologetic. Unfortunately, since the Facundo team have finals coming up, we won't be as active. I'll try to work on the problems... perhaps this weekend?? Thank you Outriggr and EyeSerene for pointing this out ^^. We deeply appreciate your help.--Mjlee27 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, exams first - there's plenty of time later if you want to continue to work on the article! We'll still be here ;) EyeSerene^talk 20:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento‎

Template:Domingo Faustino Sarmiento‎ has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. MBelgrano (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reference tag sarm93 needs to be checked

I could fix the initial reference to page 94 of Sarmiento 2003, which accidentally reused the reftag sarm93; but to check the repeated references named sarm93 the book is required. -- Cat's paw (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Facundo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325041250/http://www.e-libro.net/E-libro-viejo/gratis/facundo.pdf to http://www.e-libro.net/E-libro-viejo/gratis/facundo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)