Talk:Sandra Cisneros

Testing

Hi everyone! I'm just testing out this talk page and getting to know the Wikipedia functions. Our group is currently reviewing this article and discussing what changes need to be made. We'll post our plan of action in a couple of days! --Seto58 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Looking forward to seeing the plan. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Our Plan

This is our plan to refurbish the article on Sandra Cisneros. We are aiming to make this a featured article so we must

1. make the layout logical and visually pleasing,
2. have accurate and comprehensive information based on an extensive bibliography, and
3. have a clear and concise writing style.

The article is currently pretty poor and we have done some brainstorming on how to improve it.

We are going to restructure the article content into the following sections and each of us will take responsibility for writing certain ones:

1. Abstract,
2. Early Life and Education,
3. Later Life and Writing Career,
4. Philosophy and Literary Themes,
5. Legacy (involvement in the Chicano literary movement/genre and contributions to the arts including the Esperanza Centre and Macondo Workshop etc.)
6. List of Works (with summaries),
7. Awards

Aside from just adding more information, our goals are to make a more captivating abstract, put more emphasis on how Cisneros fits into Chicano blah blah jdgighghjtbejhuehjnjghnkghdjghejwioseh;uerh;luwhfh b, hebiheiruhwe;roiwhrpoiw horiheu uhrioth ihtioruthiofhierh ithirtdfjkejkfk rij'qwprei io ithjeo;irjeiorjeirfjeiorjei jmt itjrkgjrktjirgklfjgrjgfl;k otkfl;gk'fglk'dfogkfldk gghokh:ldfgk'ofkfl;bkflogflkflg gohkglhk'glkhytt'yi606t iyokgokh'pokh'glhk 'ltky dl;lkgf'ogkrf' oi'opkytgoyt ytpitoyitoy't[hpkllkhl;xtiojytijh;xgj;xkgjhkjghktj;iotj;riotyjritjritjrit;irfgjkfkmrtklerj;piuqutriuriiritjitjs;ritpai5uj5iu;oierujio5i5eirifghdferheureurhjdhf,kjhetrusjfhdjrtjrthr.tiurhtrlithrjthruthruthruith.ltuihruthrjdthe.jktrheltriofhrjeherujdfnjrtjhrfgjhrujyhrughfjghrjthruthfjghjrthurthioeth;eithruithfjghrjkthruhfjghjrkngtjny iuhruthouirthujrftgh l;tui;weotitgo ugh jhgrjf hjkghr.lkgj .fklghilioythj k.lkf k rijri;gr itjo;rj rijt;ertjit

Bibliography

• Cisneros, Sandra. Foreword. The Future is Mestizo. By Virgilio Elizondo. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2000.

In the foreword to this book about mestizaje in the new millennium, Cisneros offers a personal reflection on what it means to be mestiza/Chicana. She also comments on the role that Chicana/o or mestiza/o artists play in shaping the mestizo identity. Relevant to: Later Life, Philosophy, List of Works, Legacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathermary (talk • contribs) 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cisneros, Sandra. "Introduction." Borderlands/La Frontera Third Edition. By Gloria Anzaldúa. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 2007.

Cisneros has a short essay in the Introduction to the third edition of Anzaldua's book. She wrote about how Gloria Anzaldua influenced her work as a Chicana writer and about what she and Anzaldua have in common as Chicana artists. Relevant to: Later Life, Philosophy, List of Works, Legacy

• Cisneros, Sandra. "Sandra Cisneros." <http://www.sandracisneros.com/>. September 28, 2008.

This is Cisneros’ own website which is extremely useful. It has a personal message, bibliographic info, list of works, information about her foundations, plus news/magazine articles, interviews and reviews about her work. Relevant to: All.

• Cruz, Felicia J. (2001) “On the "Simplicity" of Sandra Cisneros’s House on Mango Street.” Modern Fiction Studies. 47 (4): 910-946.

Cruz analyzes The House on Mango Street from the perspective that it is deceptively simple and that it is actually much richer in style and meaning than it appears. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (philosophy of writing for the people), List of Works with Summaries (The House on Mango Street)

• Díaz Barriga, Miguel (January 2001), "Vergüenza and Changing Chicano and Chicana Narratives", Men and Masculinities, 3 (3): 278–298, doi:10.1177/1097184X01003003004{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

Diaz talks about the role of Chicana artists in reinterpreting the role of traditional Chicana ideologies and symbols. He uses the role of Vergüenza to show how Cisneros and other Chicano writers how recreated traditional gender roles and how they are related to the social and political aspects of their life. This relates to: Literary themes/Philosophy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.93.115 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Doyle, Jacqueline. (1996). “Haunting the Borderlands: La Llorona in Sandra Cisneros's "Woman Hollering Creek".” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies. 16 (1): 53-70.

Doyle examines how the figure of La Llorona is relevant to Chicana writers like Cisneros focusing on Woman Hollering Creek. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (Llorona/Malinche/Guadalupe, women’s experiences, mestiza identity), List of Works with Summaries (Woman Hollering Creek)

• Doyle, Jacqueline. (1994). “More Room of Her Own: Sandra Cisneros's The House on Mango Street.” MELUS. 19 ( 4): 5-35.

Doyle describes Cisneros’ place in contemporary women’s literature and feminism drawing parallels between Cisneros and Virginia Woolf. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (How does Cisneros understand her role as a writer?) Legacy (How does Cisneros fit into women’s/feminist/Chicana literature?)

• Fernandez de Pinedo, Eva. “An overview of Contemporary Chicano Literature.” Literature Compass. 3/4 (2006): 658-675

•Highlights the main themes of chicano literature. How Chicana females came in to power, and placed emphasis on gender, sexuality, and homosexuality that was previously not done by chicano men in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Related to: Philosophy, Legacy

• Ganz, Robin (Spring 1994), "Sandra Cisneros: Border Crossings and Beyond", MELUS, 19 (1): 19–29, retrieved 2008-09-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

•This is a nice biography of Cisneros, how she became and author, and the things and people that inspired her to write her works. Related to: Early life and Education, Later life and Career, legacy

• García, Alma. Feminist Thought: The Basic Historical Writings. Routledge: 1997.

  How relevant is this to the article? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

•This book talks about the rise of the Chicana movements not only as a whole but Chicanas against Chicanos, establishing themselves on their Gender beliefs. There is an interview with Cisneros in this on page 288. Relates to: Legacy, Literary Themes/Philosophy

• González. Christina and Patricia Gándara. (2005). “Why We Like to Call Ourselves Latinas.” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 4: 392-398.

This article gives historical background of why people of Spanish-Speaking ancestry in the U.S. prefer to be called “Latinos” rather than “Hispanics” and quotes Cisneros on this topic, revealing her thoughts on race, language, and identity. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (philosophy on race, mestiza identity)

• Jussawalla, Feroza; Way Dasenbrock, Reed, eds. (1992), Interviews with Writers of the Post-Colonial World, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, ISBN 9780878055722.

This book contains a useful interview with Sandra Cisneros about her influences, philosophy and writing style. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes, Early Life (childhood memories)

• Kafka, Phillipa. (Out)classed women: Contemporary Chicana Writers on Inequitable Gendered Power Relations. Greenwood Publishing Group. 2000

•Book talks about Woman Hollering Creek and also about the feminist and Chicana movements. Relates to: List of Works with Summary, Legacy

• Lohafer, Susan. Reading for Storyness. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2003.

In this book about short stories, Lohafer comments on how Cisneros' short stories should first be read for their "storyness" and second be read for their social relevance. Relevant to: Literary Themes

• Madsen, Deborah L. Understanding Contemporary Chicana Literature. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2000. (Specifically Chapter 1: The Contemporary Chicana Renaissance: An Introduction and Chapter 4: Sandra Cisneros)

Madsen gives a good overview of Chicana literature and of Cisneros and her work. Relevant to: Early Life (basic facts), Later Life and Writing Career (basic facts), Philosophy and Literary Themes (feminine and Chicana subjectivity), List of Works with Summaries (The House on Mango Street, Woman Hollering Creek, My Wicked Wicked Ways)

• Nash, Andrea. “Review [untitled].” TESOL Quarterly. 23(1989): 326-327

•Talks about The House on Mango Street. Related to list of works with summary

• Oliver-Rotger, Maria Antonia. Battlegrounds and Crossroads: Social and Imaginary Space in Writings by Chicanas. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.

This book explores the relationship between private and public spaces that are exemplified in Chicana literature. It also deals a lot with the theme of the 'borderlands' in Chicana literature. Ananlyses some of Cisneros' writing. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes, Legacy, List of Works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathermary (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• O'Reilly Herrera, Andrea. ""Chambers of Consciousness": Sandra Cisneros and the Development of the Self in the BIG House on Mango Street." In Having Our Way: Women Rewriting Tradition in Twentieth-Century America. Ed. Harriet Pollack. London: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1995.

O’Reilly Herrera explores the metaphor of the house as consciousness in The House on Mango Street. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (house and consciousness), List of Works with Summaries (The House on Mango Street)

• Payant, Katherine. "Borderland Themes in Sandra Cisneros's Woman Hollering Creek" in The Immigrant Experience in North American Literature: Carving Out a Niche. Ed. Katherine B. Payant and Toby Rose. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1999.

This essay, which was cited in both Lohafer's Reading for Storyness and Sadowski-Smith's Border Fictions, gives a variety of critiques and analyses of Cisneros' writing, while sticking to the theme of the 'borderland'. Relevant to: Literary Themes, Later Life, List of Works, Legacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathermary (talk • contribs) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Quintana, Alvina E. Home Girls: Chicana Literary Voices. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996.

An analysis of Cisneros' work, with a detailed analysis of The House on Mango Street. This book which is about Chicana writers describes how Cisneros and her writing have contributed to the Chicano literary movement. Relevant to: Literary Themes, Later Life, List of Works

• Sadowski-Smith, Claudia. Border Fictions. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008.

Sadowski-Smith calls Cisneros "perhaps the most famous Chicana writer" (Border Fictions, 33) and offers a critical look at some of Cisneros' writing. The book also cites other writers' interpretations of Cisneros' work and how it fits into the category of Chicano literature or border fiction. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes, Legacy, Later Life and Writing Career

• Saldívar-Hull, Sonia. Feminism on the border: Chicana gender politics and literature. University of California Press: 2000

•This book talks about feminism in the US amongst white and coloured women. It talks about the Chicana movements and the female writers that contributed to defying the boundaries of border and gender. Relates to: Legacy, Literary themes and Philosophy

• Saldívar-Hull, Sonia.”Women Hollering Transfronteriza Feminisms.” The Chicana/o Cultural Studies Reader. Ed. Angie Chabram-Dernersesian. Routledge. 2004

•In this article Saldívar-Hull talks about various article including Women Hollering Creek that Cisneros has written and how it relates to the emergence of feminism on the border. Related to: List of Works with Summary, Literary themes/Philosophy

• Saldívar, Ramón. Chicano Narrative: The Dialectics of Difference. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

This book presents an examination of Mexican-American/Chicano narratives as a tool in the struggle to retain cultural integrity despite cultural and regional displacement of Mexican-Americans. Cisneros' work fits into this category and this book goes into great detail about The House on Mango Street. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes, Legacy, Later Life and Writing Career, Awards

• Singley, Carol J., Anxious Power: Readings, Writing, and Ambivalence in Narrative by Women. New York. SUNY Press: 1993

•Talks about and analyzes The house on Mango Street . Related to: literary themes and List of works.

• Tatum, Charles M. Chicano and Chicana Literature: Otra voz del pueblo. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2006.

Tatum's book gives examples of how Cisneros' work uses themes that are common to Chicana literature, such as those of the Virgin of Guadalupe, La Llorona and Atzlan. He also discusses her work as a Chicana poet. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes, Legacy, Later Life and Writing Career

• Wyatt, Jean. (1995). “On Not Being La Malinche: Border Negotiations of Gender in Sandra Cisneros's "Never Marry a Mexican" and "Woman Hollering Creek".” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature. 14 (2): 243-271.

Wyatt examines Chicana gender and sexual identity as portrayed in Woman Hollering Creek. Relevant to: Philosophy and Literary Themes (Llorona/Malinche/Guadalupe, female sexuality), List of Works with Summaries (Woman Hollering Creek)

Comments on bibliography This is a decent start, but it could be more comprehensive: there are very few journal articles, for instance. You'll also be wanting to annotate these references as you get hold of them and start working with them to improve the article. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jon. I just added 5 more journal articles. We'll annotate these references ASAP - this will be useful for sharing sources that we've collected individually and to keep track of their contents as we have so many. Seto58 (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Seto58

OK, looks good! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I added some annotations on the books that I have looked at, with more to come tomorrow. I also added some space between the entries for room for annotations, which can be decreased later. Heathermary (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Thanks for doing this Heather! I added annotations for all the sources I found. As you can see, I indicated which section each source is relevant to, I think this will help us out a lot when we're working on our respective sections. Seto58 (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Good job, you guys! Of course, as you use material from these sources in writing the article, you can copy the bibliographic information over here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, I annotated the rest of my sources, and added their relevance. Heathermary (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)heathermary

hey guys, i just annotated all my bibligraphy. theres only one missing by Herreira...thats the only one who isn't annotated. i dont know whose it is..anyways Buen trabajo mis chiquitas poderosas y bonitas!!!! seguiremos adelante!!!

Wow! The bibliography looks great and is actually useful now! I'm going to plow through some of these sources this week and start writing my sections. Good work! Seto58 (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What Seto58 said: this is now a very helpful bibliography. Time to write the article! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Question

Jon, after I updated "References" I wanted to update "Notes" but when I clicked "edit" I did not see the existing notes, only code for "reflist." The notes are now incorrect, how do I edit them? Thanks. Seto58 (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Ah. You have to go to the section that contains the referenced information. In this case, that's this one. When you edit there, you can then see the footnotes enclosed in <ref> and </ref> tags. I think I may already have fixed this, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Little note

I temorarily altered the page (then reset it a minute later) to demonstrate how the info on Wikipedia isn't always accurate. It's important when working on a report (or just for the health of wikipedia in general) to double check a fact with the cited resource is available. I guess this isn't the proper place for a lesson, but that explains the edit history. --TehZorroness (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Literary Themes

Hi ladies!

Last class we were talking about the content for the themes section... I'm going to post below what themes I'm going to write about so please leave a note if you have any suggestions!

1. Borderland

• setting for her stories, much going back and forth between Mexico and U.S.
• raises themes of dislocation, racism, fitting in, national and cultural identity, hybridism

1. Gender Identity

• development of female subjectivity (influences: childhood, family, culture/pop culture
• women’s experiences (solidarity, prejudice, poverty, family values, oppression, empowerment)

1. Chicana Subjectivity

• mythical mothers (La Malinche, La Llorona, La Virgen)
• double oppression (racism, sexism)
• cultural influences from Mexico and the U.S.

1. Place

• importance of place in either confining a person or setting them free – one’s own house as a physical and psychological necessity for women.

Seto58 (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Some Notes

Hey everyone, I am unable to edit the article, I guess this is because I have been a poor wikipedia editor and have not edited in 2 weeks or something. So, until this works itself out I will just add some notes to the talk page, these come from the books that I have looked at, please feel free to take any of this and work it into your section.

From Sadowski-Smith:

-Cisneros is "perhaps the most famous Chicana writer" (Sadowski-Smith, 33)

-border literature - “the conflation of the border space with issues of Chicana/o identity…divorces symbolic concepts from the literal territory of the national boundary” (Sadowski-Smith, 33).

-while she often writes about border issues, “none of her work is explicitly located along the Mexico-U.S. boundary” (Sadowski-Smith, 33).

-Although Cisneros' work rarely explicitly mentions the border, it can be classified as border literature by the symbolic way that she uses "the border" to bring up questions of Chicano/a identity and aesthetics (Sadowski-Smith, 34).

From Tatum:

-"In the first novel, Cisneros draws extensively on her own background of being reared in a Chicago barrio as the only daughter in a family of six brothers" (Tatum 121). - Cisneros draws on her own experiences and her childhood in her fiction

-"begins to associate this religious figure with her own gradual escape from patriarchal strictures. Cisneros has given to the Mexican Virgin some of the attributes of the Aztec/Nahuatl goddesses..." (Tatum 125-6).

-woman hollering creek - "The yell of triumph replaces the lament of the traditional La Llorona figure, and in this way Cisneros reinterprets the mythological figure, giving her assertiveness and other positive traits" (Tatum 127).

-Cisneros’ use of the idea of aztlan on pages 143-145

-Tatum discusses her poetry on page 177

From Quintana:

-notions of oppression/power in relation to writing and liberation in House on Mango Street, "You must remember to keep writing, Esperanza. You must keep writing. It will keep you free, and I said yes, but at that time I didn't know what she meant" (Quintana 51).

-The House on Mango Street "defied the poetic form previously privileged by many Chicana writers...defined a distinctive Chicana literary space...challenging, at the least, accepted literary form, gender inequities, and the cultural and economic subordination of minorities...text subverts traditional form and content in a way that demonstrates how conventional application of literary genre and the social construction of gender undermine a "feminist aesthetic"" (Quintana 55).

From Cisneros’ Introduction to Anzaldua:

-"It's why I moved from Illinois to Texas. So that the relatives and family would allow me the liberty to disappear into myself. To reinvent myself if I had to. As Latinas, we have to."

-"Because writing is like putting your head underwater."

Heathermary (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)heathermary

I can now edit the main article, hurray! Heathermary (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Yes, it was actually because you had fewer than ten edits... This page is "protected," which means that anonymous editors and brand-new editors weren't allowed to edit it. (These are the people who most often vandalize, though of course they often add useful content, too, so mostly articles aren't protected in this way unless there has been a history of vandalism.) And as an editor with fewer than ten edits, you were considered to be still "brand new."

Now, however, you are confirmed editor in good standing... So keep it up! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

More from Quintana:

“Sandra Cisneros uses fiction as a form of social commentary” (Quintana, 75) like other Chicana writers, “her work contributes to an emergent literary tradition that emphasizes cultural traditions and in this respect resembles the writing produced by contemporary cultural anthropologists” (Quintana, 75). “a desire for authenticity motivates the writers of both ethnographic and Chicana creative-writing projects, they share the narrative problems that arise with attempts to “accurately” portray culture.” (Quintana, 75)

“Cisneros’s portrayal of the social predicaments contributing to her protagonist’s confusion is a symbolic act of resistance on the author’s part” (Quintana, 58)

“Through Esperanza’s characterization, Cisneros depicts some of the inner conflicts that develop as marginalized individuals attempt to resolve the apparent disjunction between their desires for cultural integrity and for individual liberation” (Quintana, 65)

“Cisneros’s poetic text defies prosaic convention; syncopated fragments punctuated as complete thoughts make us aware of the writer’s experimentation with form” (Quintana, 66).

“By taking her writing one step past the conventional, Cisneros has moved into a terrain explored by few Chicana writers” (Quintana, 66)

House “redefines literary form in its mediation between the romantic and the harsh” (Quintana, 67)

“Cisneros defies tradition by writing about censored topics” (Quintana, 67) “revises history by honestly confronting her past” (Quintana, 67)

“she has embraced an assertive role, sculpting cultural impressions that have helped refine Chicana feminist aesthetics” (Quintana, 67)

“bring women from the margins to the center, recognizing them as active participants in history rather than pawns struggling for self-expression and escape” (Quintana, 68)

House – “its tone, free of anger or accusation, on the surface innocent and dispassionate, allows Anglo American male and female readers to approach the text with relative ease; in this sense it differs from contemporary literature written by women of color” (Quintana, 73)

“The narrative thus functions as the ultimate strategy for escape from confining traditions. Cisneros enables her readers to look critically at the assumptions that engulf them” (Quintana, 74).

Heathermary (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

progress?

Guys, I'm a touch worried... As is verified in our progress reports, the rate of advance of this article is slowing down... from 69 edits in the first period, to 30 and now 20. C'mon, don't give up... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Citing

hey jon, im not really sure about citing. im writing the part on early life and education and as im writing the story of her childhood and her history, using a source thats on the web (its a scholarly article) im coming to the realization that i have no idea what to cite...like...am i supposed to be citing her history or is that more of a general fact. im also writing about her family history. is that something i have to cite? im posting the first paragraph. check it out. and let me know what you think ok. thanks

also i have no idea how to cite so i just put () where i think it should be cited. can you tell me how to cite as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs)

Hi. You do need to put the full details of the article in the references section. (Just like any other piece of academic writing, you need to have the full reference.)

Is the article in question this one:

Ganz, Robin (Spring 1994), "Sandra Cisneros: Border Crossings and Beyond", MELUS 19(1): 19-29.

If so, you should note that it does indeed have page numbers, and these should be indicated every time you cite the article. (Again, just like a term paper or whatever.)

Beyond that, don't worry about the formatting.

And as for when to cite... Have a look here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

This is coming along. Well done! One thing that will have to be improved fairly soon is the "lead" or introduction. For hints on to what is expected in this section, take a look at WP:LEAD. Once you've done this, I'll drop a note (or you can, of course) with someone from the FA-Team, for them to undertake a review of the article so far. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards section

hello!! i need help.under my awards part i havent cited anything. if i got the info from the net how do i cite it???? i dont think that theres an author to the site. help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can copy/paste the URL (the address that appears in the bar at the top of the browser that starts with http://...) either here or by the text you want cited in the article, I'll see what I can do ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC

http://www.poets.org/poet.php/prmPID/747 - thats it! thanks for you help. let me know if i can do anything.

also theres another address that i need to cite. i post it on the early life and education part. you'll find it. if you could do something about that too that would be great.

and another question. how would i go about posting a photo of sandra cisneros in that little box on the top right hand side of the page. actually how would i go about editing the box???? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 21:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ok so now i added another fifty million websites. its on the list of works and summaries part. can you please see what you can do about those too? thanks!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 22:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Valerie, the problem is that most of those are not good sources. See WP:RS for why. And see the bibliography that you guys compiled a month or so ago for better sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! OK, good work. It's getting late here, so I'll get them formatted for you tomorrow (and post something about the picture, although you need to be certain of its copyright status before we can do anything with it!). Oh, and typing four tildes (four of these ~~~~) at the end of your posts will automagically add your signature... it's considered good etiquette, or you're going to be forever nagged about it by other editors and bots ;) EyeSerene^talk 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello all

Hi WP:NRG editors! I'm one of those FA-Team editors that jbmurray mentioned above, and I've 'adopted' your article - which means I'll be keeping an eye on it with you and offering assistance as you go through the various stages of article writing and assessment. You've already produced some really good work, and the article is shaping up well. There's still some way to go though, so if you don't mind I'll have a read through and post a 'to-do' list in the near future to help point you in the right direction. I assume we're aiming for Good article status as a first goal (?), so I'll comment with that in mind. I'm also more than happy to answer any Wikipedia-related questions you might have or help with formatting and copyediting. My talk page is linked in my signature, or you can post stuff here; I'll see it either way. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi EyeSerene, thanks for adopting us! Yes, we're aiming for Good Article status and will be submitting the article on Monday November 10th, which means that you'll probably see a lot of activity over the weekend. We'll be doing a whole lot of additions, fact-checking and polishing-up. I've just written a new lead as per jbmurray's suggestion, so I hope it follows the Wikipedia standards. I'll be watching the talk page for your to-do list - thanks! Seto58 (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

That's great! I have a bit of experience with assessing Good Articles, so I think it might be useful if I post the to-do list as a kind of informal GA review. I'll try to get this done this afternoon, so you'll have something to go by over the weekend. Maybe we can be the first group to get to GA... All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GA checklist

I've gone over the article with the six Good article criteria in mind, and picked up some points that may need addressing. My comments are below, under the same headings as the relevant GA criterion. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing and Manual of Style compliance

The prose is generally good, although there are quite a few places where it would benefit from some attention. A couple of examples of awkward grammar/phraseology:

• "Finding his career in upholstering, Sandra's father, after finding a way to maintain and support his family, began 'a compulsive circular migration between Chicago and Mexico City that became the dominating pattern of Sandra's childhood.'" Done

• "This was the stop of her continuous migration from the USA to Mexico." Done

I won't list them all; I think I can be more use here if I try to make time over the weekend to give the article a light copyedit. Other than that, specific points I noticed are:

• Lead: per WP:LEAD, this needs to be a summary of the article rather than an introduction to it. A good rule-of-thumb is that, if the rest of the article didn't exist, a reader should still be able to get the gist from the lead. This means every major point in the article should be mentioned twice - once in the lead, and again in more detail in the body (where it will also be sourced). See my comment under "Broadness of coverage" below too.

• Are we ok with using 'chicana' to describe Sandra Cisneros's ethnicity? I understand it can have derogatory connotations, and she's described as 'Mexican American' in the infobox. Done

Yes we are OK with that. The infobox says "Mexican American" along side Cisneros's nationality; this is a good neutral descriptor for the nation-states she is affiliated with. The term "Chicana" is an ethnic term that is infused with political and cultural meanings that are certainly not all negative, especially to Mexican Americans themselves. Many Mexican Americans self-identify as Chicano/a and this is a source of pride and solidarity. The vast majority of academic literature we have used to write this article refers to the "Chicano community" and refers to Cisneros as a "Chicana writer". Seto58 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Thanks for the explanation. Struck. EyeSerene^talk 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• "...facing the misogynist attitudes inherent to both these cultures". This is a pretty damning statement that will need some serious attribution and sourcing, or perhaps a way can be found to state it less sweepingly? Done

I softened up this sentence by saying "present in" rather than "inherent to." The former implies that women DO experience prejudice and violence in these cultures but this can be changed, rather than the latter which implies that prejudice and violence against women is irreparably woven into the fabric of these cultures. Seto58 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Much improved! Struck. EyeSerene^talk 15:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• The dates need checking for consistency per WP:MOSDATE. Wikipedia's usual style is to use the international day-month-year format, and ordinal suffixes (th, as in 20th) are never used. For example, "December 20th 1954" would become "20 December 1954". Done

• I think we need a translations (or English equivalents) for "...he had "'seis hijos y una hija' instead of 'siete hijos.'" - possibly as a footnote if it would be too intrusive in the main text. I can help with the formatting if you're not sure how footnotes work. Done

I translated these phrases - do the brackets look too intrusive? Seto58 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

I think the brackets work fine - we can always footnote if someone objects later, but having the translation in the text seems to make more sense to me. Struck. EyeSerene^talk 15:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• I spotted both Cisneros's and Cisneros' in the text - the first is correct, so a quick check to ensure consistency would be useful. Done

• "However, Cisneros’ one strong female influence was her mother, Elvira, who was a voracious in reading and was much more intelligent and socially aware than her husband was." Although this is cited, it comes across as slightly insulting to her father. Perhaps it could be expressed more tactfully?

• "...and following that received her M.F.A after finishing a writer’s workshop at the University of Iowa in 1978." What's an MFA? Can we wikilink to an appropriate article? Done

Factual accuraccy and verifiability

At GA, citations are needed for (at a minimum) every direct quotation, statistic, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statement that could be challenged, or contentious material relating to a living person. This means we need to have cites for sentences like:

• "However, after her father had failed classes due to his lack of interest, he had run away to the United States, not able to withstand the fury of his father." Done

• "While roaming the southern United States with his brother, Alfredo Cisneros de Moral had decided to go to Chicago to see what it was like." Done

• "Eventually this unstable environment left Sandra feeling loneliness and as the six brothers joined paired off in two's, Sandra was left being the odd "woman" out." Done

• "Her father was yet another cause as to why Sandra felt excluded from the family, denoting the fact that he had 'seis hijos y una hija' instead of 'siete hijos.'" Done

• "Cisneros is well known for her incorporation of Spanish into English texts." Done

I did not insert a citation but instead altered the sentence to improve accuracy. Seto58 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Hopefully you can see from these examples why the cites are needed. There are plenty more, but if you don't mind, rather than adding to this list I'll just add tags to the article instead ;)

• The Awards section is unsourced at present. I know it's been mentioned above, but jbmurray has rightly pointed out some potential problems with the sources Valerie voikin suggested, so I'm not sure what you want to do here. Ideally we need reliable secondary sources, but if we can't find them, I don't think this section will get past a GA reviewer.

  I've started adding some sources here. They're not hard to come by. Where sources can't be found, the information should just be jettisoned. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  And Madsen 107 would seem to have something to say on awards... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Broadness of coverage

• The Later life and writing career section needs much more detail. In the lead you've mentioned a few personal details that I couldn't find in the article body (such as where Cisneros lives and the Macondo Foundation). They might be better here instead (as long as they're sourced!). Perhaps also, did she marry? Has she got any children? We need to avoid repetition, but you might be able to think of other relevant information to go here.

• I'm not sure that we need to summarise Cisneros's works in the List of works and Summaries section. Where discussion of her works is useful, this might be best done within the prior sections (in reference to their themes, styles etc). Personally I'd keep it as a straightforward List of works, but it's entirely up to you - you may feel it's better as it currently is.

Neutrailty

This criterion seems OK; I couldn't see any concerns here.

Stability

Again, this seems fine (it really relates to articles where the content is in dispute or subject to major revision).

Images

These are not required for GA, although if they are used the copyright needs to be correct. Valerie, per your comment above do you have an image in mind for the article? If it's from the web, if you can supply a link I can show you how to upload it (assuming it's suitable).

We could not find an image on the web that is not copyrighted. We could potentially email Cisneros's publicist and request that an image be released into the public domain. Seto58 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly: that's the thing to do. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that's an excellent idea. There are some example letters on WP:ERP that might be useful. EyeSerene^talk 15:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's about it for now! I hope the list isn't too daunting, but I've tried to cover everything (although I'm sure I've missed one or two points that the GA reviewer will pick up). If you need any clarification or have any questions, don't hesitate to ask ;) I'll regularly drop in here anyway, and I'll try to work on some of the Wikipedia-specific points myself. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Valerie voikin

HELLO!! ok so if i used cisneros's actual official website to cite her awards would that be credible?(let me know so i can give you the site so you could help me cite it please) i cannot find a single book with her awards in them that would be considered credible. also on the home page of her official website there is a great picture of her. if you guys could take a look and see if we can use this picture that would be great.

It's better than nothing, but it's not a great source. Again, take a look at WP:RS.

and one more question for jon. they've advised me not to do summaries of her list of works. what should i do???Valerie voikin (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the main problem here is that you were using poor source. See the discussion above, and also (again) WP:RS. You have a list of good sources up in the bibliography. Use them! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that my comment re summarising Cisneros's works is advisory only! If you think summaries are better in their own section, then we can leave them there for now and see how the article develops. The reason I raised this as a concern is that I think you may find it hard to write separate sections on both literary themes and book summaries without repeating yourself between the two. However, I'm happy to be proved wrong, so I'll leave this up to you ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Update from heathermary

I've added to the later life section but unfortunately could not access the Ganz article for some scholarly-sourced biographical information, I will do this tomorrow.

Also, when it comes to information about the Macondo Foundation, is it acceptable to source the foundation's website? Heathermary (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Nice job ;) Regarding the Macondo Foundation, it depends what we're sourcing. We can use their website to source what they say about themselves (such as their goals, their staff, the type of work they do etc), but we need to be careful to avoid original research - they are a primary source, and ideally Wikipedia uses secondary sources where possible. The best thing is to add what you have in mind to the article, quote them as the source, and then Jon or I can take a look and see if it meets WP:RS. EyeSerene^talk 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Vitale reference

I think there's a problem with this reference. Have you guys heard this interview? Or (as I'm suspecting), are you quoting it from Ganz (p. 27). If it's the latter, then you should make that clear. You should tell us the source you got your information from. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jon, yes you are correct, I read it in the Ganz article. Is it okay to just say "quoted in Ganz p.27"? Thanks for catching that. Heathermary (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's the way to do it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Photo

hello all. id really like to use the photo of sandra cisneros from her web page. its the first pic you see when shes sitting in her really cool boots. are we able to upload it somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 03:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Val, I really like that photo as well. If we want that photo I think we'll have to write to the publicist I think? Maybe we'll have to add this later? Heathermary (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, write! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

We've now dealt with the bulk of the Pre-GA checklist I posted above , so I've started a copyedit (probably the first of many!) since I think we're fast approaching GA nomination time struck; already nominated!. As I go through I'll post comments, questions etc below. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• Sandra Cisneros's own web site would not normally be suitable as a reference (see WP:SPS), but it is acceptable for material where (from WP:BLP): it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Lead

• This is generally best left until last, since it may need to reflect changes to the article (and in any case it looks pretty good already)

Early life and education

• Who is Ganz? Can we call him "Cisneros's biographer"?

• What year did Cisneros's parents marry?

• Is Humboldt Park in Chicago?

• The bio jumps from age eleven to Cisneros's degree. Would it be possible to get more information for the intervening years?

• What is PEN? This currently links to a disambiguation page.

• Can we get more detail about "Mujeres Por La Paz"?

Teaching

• I'm not sure we need to mention her jobs as a college recruiter and arts administrator, though as always it's your call ;)

I think that its interesting to note the different jobs that she has held. But I ill read it over again and consider taking it out. Heathermary (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

OK, see what you think. Maybe it could be integrated more into the section (perhaps chronologically, though I noticed on her site she doesn't give any more details). I just thought it kind of looks tacked on at the moment, but I agree it's relevant to her bio. EyeSerene^talk 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Family

• I realise it's already referenced, but I think it might help to attribute the interview in the text too. How would we write the interviewer's name? (from the ref I'm assuming it would be Pilar E Rodríguez Aranda, but I'm not sure!)

Thanks for that, I've added some more info about the interview and mentioned the interviewers name. Heathermary (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Great. I got the format of Latin-American names wrong when I helped out with Jon's last project, so this time I thought it's best to leave it to the experts ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Community legacy

• The paragraph states that she 'created' a strong community. Is this accurate (and more to the point, neutral)? I've reworded this - hopefully it's OK (but it still needs a citation)

• "...which is available to the Chicano community’s writers when they are in need of a time of healing" I've tagged this too as needing a cite, but I wonder if there's a way to express more encyclopedically?

I like the rewording as "instrumental in building", less assuming than "created".

The information for both of these points come from websites...the second one I don't think we would be able to find anywhere else since it is about a specific award...but I will look into it.

I reworded the Anzaldua award part, putting a little bit of background as to why this award would be given to writers who are sick or hurt. Does that make more sense?

Thanks Heathermary (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Thanks, that definitely helps. Re the 'healing' part, although we might use it in conversation (and in context it's generally understood), in the article it comes over as a bit airy-fairy. Are we talking solely about physical healing, or also mental and spiritual healing? I'm wondering if there's a way to be more specific. EyeSerene^talk 08:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicano literary movement

• "That in six years Sandra Cisneros and The House on Mango Street had garnered enough attention to be taken on by Vintage Press said a lot about the possibility for Chicano literature to become more widely recognized." This sentence comes across as editor commentary at the moment. Can we rephrase and source?

• "...writing the stories that had not yet been written." What does this mean?

• This section contains a number of statements that could perhaps be attributed in the text (to avoid the impression of editor commentary). For example, rather than "The House on Mango Street is a book that has reached beyond the Chicano and Latino literature communities and is now read by students and people of all ethnicities.", we might be better with something like "According to Felicia J Cruz, The House on Mango Street is a book..."

• "Alvina E Quintana attributes its accessibility to Anglo- and Mexican-Americans alike to its freedom from anger or accusation, presenting the issues in an approachable way." What issues? Could we briefly expand on this?

Thanks for the rephrasing in this section, it sounds better. I tried to justify the stories that had not yet been written part - basically that Cisneros represents literature that before her was not really seen by the mainstream.

I also added some more stuff to the part about issues and accessibility...would this need anymore citation? Heathermary (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's much clearer! I still wasn't entirely happy with the "writing the stories that had not yet been written" bit (call me picky :P), as it's a bit of a logical fallacy - obviously they hadn't been written if she hadn't yet written them - so I've tried rephrasing it in line with your explanation. See what you think, and please alter etc as necessary... EyeSerene^talk 08:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, I like the rephrasing...however does it still need a citation? See here.--Heathermary (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

Replied in that section below. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bilingualism

• Nothing much here, although I've added a few {{fact}} tags.

I added the citations you asked for and added some textual examples. Seto58 (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Brilliant, thanks! EyeSerene^talk 08:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Voice of the people

• Do we have a date for Cisneros's epiphany in the MFA seminar?

Not sure if this is necessary given that the section is about her style and not her education - I tried to work it into the sentence but it sounds superfluous:

"While attending an MFA seminar at the University of Iowa, which she completed in 1978, Cisneros was suddenly struck by the differences between her and her classmates, and how these would be fundamental to the development of her literary style."

What do you think? Seto58 (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Well, your call ;) As it's clearly an important moment in her development as a writer, I thought it might be helpful to indicate when it happened. Maybe just "While attending an MFA seminar at the University of Iowa in 1978, Cisneros was suddenly struck..."? EyeSerene^talk 10:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Narrative modes, diction, and apparent simplicity

• "...she has a great breadth of style by which she powerfully and inventively challenges literary and social conventions." This not only needs citing, but rephrasing less effusively ;) (or, if it's a quotation, presenting as such) Done

Hmmm. I'm not exactly sure how to cite this sentence because it is the culmination of all of the books and articles that I've read about Cisneros. They all agree that she has a great breadth of style (writes in many forms - novels, stories, poems - and uses a wide variety of narrative techniques) and that her writing is powerful, inventive and boundary breaking. That's a whole lot of citations - how do I go about this? Seto58 (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58.

You also said the sentence below needs a reference but I have the same problem as above. I think these overview sentences are good because they allow the reader to put the specifics of Cisneros's style into the broader context of her writing but they're hard to cite. Suggestions? Seto58 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

• "Cisneros's writing is rich not only for its lyrical form and diction, but also the social commentary that is by and large written between the lines"  Done

Hmm. If it's a distillation of multiple sources, a representative selection could be added to the end. A better alternative would perhaps be to attribute it in the text too, using quotations for the more enthusiastic language to avoid the impression of editor commentary (assuming they are quoted, of course!) For example, "Critics such as X, Y and Z have noted Cisneros's breadth of style, by which she "powerfully" and "inventively" challenges... (multiple citations at end of sentence)" EyeSerene^talk 10:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've reworked these two sentences and I think they read a lot better. I decided to use quotations from a couple of sources to describe specific characteristics rather than try to encompass everything in generalities. They also sound less like I'm spouting my own opinion. :) Seto58 (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Yes, so do I. nice work ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• "mere fluff" Perhaps there's a more encyclopedic phrase we could use here?

Place

• "For Chicanas, the home can be an oppressive place where they are subjugated to the will of male heads-of-household, or in the case of their own home, an empowering place where they can be autonomous and express themselves creatively." I think this needs attribution in the text (and a cite!)

• What is the key concept in Virginia Woolf's essay "A Room of One's Own"? It would help the reader to briefly explain.

• "This alludes to "the necessity for a decent living space" that Saldívar asserts is fundamental to all people, despite the different oppressions they face." I added the 'Saldívar asserts' bit, but it's an assumption based on the reference so you'll need to check for accuracy (it could be that it's Salvidar asserting that Cisneros asserts... if that makes sense!)

What you said makes sense, I altered the sentence so hopefully it's clearer. Seto58 (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Yep, I think that's spot on. EyeSerene^talk 09:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Construction of femininity and female sexuality

• I have some slight concerns about neutrality in this section. It reads as though the article author is arguing for a specific feminist viewpoint, and citing Cisneros's work to back up that argument, rather than simply describing how Cisneros uses her writing to set out her personal views on the subject. What's causing it to read that way is, I think, the use of some quite sweeping statements without qualification or attribution. I've tried to pick out the problem sentences below (along with the usual questions!):

I think I've addressed everything you've said here. I replaced some of my paraphrasing statements with attributed and cited statements and also quoted Cisneros herself. I hope it is clear that I am describing Cisneros's viewpoints and not merely my own. I've also made a number of sentences more specific. Let me know what you think! Seto58 (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Struck all of these. That's a superb job you've done! EyeSerene^talk 10:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Patriarchal norms of femininity and female sexuality, most often Mexican but also Anglo-American..." Characterising two entire cultures as 'patriarchal' is a bit too opinionated for an encyclopedia ;) Perhaps something like "The patriarchal environment that Cisneros experienced [...] is reflected in the lives of all her female characters"? (assuming, of course, it's in the sources!)  Done

• "She shows how women internalize these norms at a young age, through informal education by family members and popular culture." Is this true for all women everywhere, as the sentence seems to imply? Maybe "She shows how the women in her novels internalize these norms..."?  Done

• "In The House on Mango Street the girls speculate..." Which girls? It would help the reader to give a little more context.  Done

• "They’re good for holding a baby when you’re cooking, Rachel says... You need them to dance, says Lucy... You gotta know how to walk with hips, practice you know." Are the ellipses in this quotation part of the literal quote, or indicating missing text? (in which case we need [] around them)  Done

• "This romantic mythology is fueled by popular culture which weaves stories of harmonious relations between men and women, romantic love and happily-ever-after scenarios that women buy into even though they bear no resemblance to real life. Cisneros illustrates this fact..." This sentence seems to be making an assertion that is not only very sweeping but demonstrably untrue for much of the world's population (hence not a "fact"). Again, placing it in the context of Cisneros's work would help.  Done

Construction of Chicana identity

• "...the Virgen de Guadalupe, La Malinche and La Llorona." I'm not sure what you think, but although you've wikilinked them and there's more detail further on in the same paragraph, a brief explanation of who these figures are and why they're important might be useful. We'd need to be careful not to detract from the article's focus though, so I'm kind of on the fence about this.  Done

I agree, these concepts are not self-evident and they are very important to Cisnero's work. I've explained them a little further while trying to keep it as brief as possible. What do you think? Seto58 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Looks good to me! I think if anything we've gone too far down the direct quotation route - paraphrasing is better where possible, as it leaves quotation for the particularly important points. I've tweaked it a little with that in mind, so hopefully I haven't ruined your excellent addition. Also, I'm not sure why there are quote marks around 'rapeable' - is this part of the larger quotation, or outside the quotation? EyeSerene^talk 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• "According to this theory, supported by many cultural theorists..." Such as whom? We need to justify this assertion.  Done

I did have a footnote saying this: Jacqueline Doyle (Doyle 1996, p. 67) points toward these authors for critical readings of la Malinche and la Llorona: Perez 1993, Candelaria 1980; and Candelaria 1993. But I agree, "many cultural theorists" sounds weak, even if there is a footnote. Instead I've included the main names in brackets. Seto58 (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

I'm sorry, I must have missed the footnote :( However, I think you've now supported the point well. The only quibble I've got is that the refs don't specify page numbers... EyeSerene^talk 15:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• "...and discovers that the grito of la Llorona..." Grito?  Done

You're right, this is unclear. I changed it from: "discovers that the grito of la Llorona can mean a "joyous holler" rather than a grieving wail." to "discovers that the grito of the myth, which is the Spanish word for the sound made by la Llorona, can be interpreted as a "joyous holler" rather than a grieving wail." Seto58 (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

Borderland

Nothing here ;)

Yayyy! Seto58 (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

:D EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards

• I think this section is ok too, although a couple of the sources could be better (there are comments in the markup, presumably left by Jon!)

Comment re:GA nomination

Although a lot of great work has been done on this article, it is currently quite far from meeting the Good Article criteria on account of its lack of references alone. While I understand that many of the {{citation needed}} tags have been added since the GA nomination, an article with ten outstanding claims requiring verification is not a convincing GA candidate. Unless these tags are addressed soon, the article is likely to be quick-failed by a reviewer. It might be best to put the nomination on hold until the article is in a stable and thoroughly-referenced condition. Sincerely, the skomorokh 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. As a reviewer I would be perfectly happy to find only ten statements needing citation. It makes the reviewer's job even easier that someone else has highlighted some issues first. However, they must be checked against the GA criteria for citation. For instance, does "She was also a member of PEN, and an organizer for a women’s group called Mujeres Por La Paz." need a citation at GA level, if the references cover it? In many cases the "citation needed" claim is spurious, because the nearest quoted reference supports the prose. One example is "distinctive Chicana literary space", which is Template:Google books quote. Please do research and don't bean count. Geometry guy 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be my fault. I believe we've pretty much finished prepping the article for GA, and during my copyedit I've deliberately gone beyond GA standards (with the thought that the more thorough we are now, the less we'll need to do later). It's moot anyway - thanks to the NRG editors' magnificent efforts, all the {{fact}} tags have now been addressed . EyeSerene^talk 08:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

"For instance, does "She was also a member of PEN, and an organizer for a women’s group called Mujeres Por La Paz." need a citation at GA level, if the references cover it?" This is a rather vacuous question - if the references "cover it", then an inline citation should identify the reference in question. Not all claims require inline citation, but those that have been challenged ({{cn}}) most certainly do. "In many cases the "citation needed" claim is spurious, because the nearest quoted reference supports the prose"; if so, the claim ought to be clearly attributed to the reference. "Please do research" indeed. What my comment was getting at is that it is not ideal for an article to be undergoing very active overhaul just after being nominated for GA status - the stability criterion is there for a reason. I congratulate EyeSerene and the students working on the article, and do not at all agree that referencing should be dumbed down simply because the article is nominated for GA standard. Adios, the skomorokh 11:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)#

I think Skomorokh has a point, mainly because through no-one's fault the GA nom was a little premature. I've been relying on the backlog and the likely wait to give us time to get things into shape - not ideal, I know; perhaps a withdrawal and renom would have been better, but my fact-bombing has now been dealt with and the copyedit largely completed. I hope under the circumstances we can afford some flexibility ;) BTW, I've asked Jackyd101 if he wouldn't mind doing the honours, so a GA review should be posted soon. EyeSerene^talk 12:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you are the miscreant who added fact tags in the middle of sentences without checking whether the material was supported by the cite at the end of the sentence :-)

A lot of folk think that someone adding {{cn}}/{{fact}} means that the material has been challenged per WP:V. Well, if I wanted to make a point, I'd fire up AWB and add {{cn}} after every sentence (hey, why stop there?: every word) of their favourite articles.

That wouldn't be a challenge that the material is unsupported by the sources, only a mess of templates. So we should check each {{cn}} tag and ask, "is a citation actually needed to verify that this is what the sources say? Is one actually supplied even?"

Okay, I know that the style guideline WP:CS#When_quoting_someone says the citation should go immediately after the quote, but common sense and all that? These are just three words quoted as part of a paraphrase, and are plainly in the text referenced at the end of the sentence; thus the text is clearly verifiable, and the tag is no challenge at all. Though I'd be interested see what would happen at FAC! :-) Geometry guy 22:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to be on the strict side when it comes to cites, which I don't see as a bad thing ;) However, I agree that in this case I slipped up - I wouldn't normally have tagged something like that, and believe I would have caught and removed it as spurious on my second pass through. No big deal though, and kudos to the NRG editors for getting the article this far. EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no big deal. Overciting is a bit like overlinking: preferable to underciting, and easy to fix! The article is looking very nice now. Geometry guy 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sagel

OK, Heathermary, I note that you added this Sagel reference here. Can we have the details of this source? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jon. This reference was from the Ganz article I believe, and was originally in there to cite the idea that she was "writing the stories that had not yet been written" which you will note has now been rephrased by EyeSerene to be "filled a void by bringing to the fore a genre that had previously been at the margins of mainstream literature"...which is not really a direct reference to Sagel's quotation...and maybe is no longer needed? I do not have access to the Ganz article right now, but I can look into it tomorrow to check if it is still valid, if so I will back up the citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathermary (talk • contribs) 05:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I've altered the sense of it, then please rephrase! However, from what you've said I'm guessing that writing the stories that had not yet been written was a direct quotation from Sagel; if so, maybe we can put that back in and keep the citation? You're the subject expert, so your judgement is better than mine ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This looks good now, after looking into what Ganz quoted it seems to fit, thanks.Heathermary (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)heathermary

new

ok serena, i cited the rest of what needed to be cited in my section. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerie voikin (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks!!! you're the best! ;) Seto58 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

anonymous editor

There's a sentence in the article that I've had to revert back to it's original twice because an anonymous editor changes it without mentioning it on the discussion page. As it stands the sentence is: "However, when they reach adolescence and womanhood, they must reconcile their expectations about love and sex with their own experiences of disillusionment, confusion and anguish." If you want to change it please let me know why first. Seto58 (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Seto58

picture

hi there, just so everyone knows we've tried to email the publisher of sandra cisneros's website to get permission to use one of her photos but they haven't replied at all. i dont know what else to do. Valerie voikin (talk) 21:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just spent a while browsing the web, and I think I've found a photo we can use here. It's not as good as her professional publicity stuff (it looks like it was taken by the uploader at a book reading), but according to the website it's on, its copyright is suitable for Wikipedia (page here). There are apparently three photos available , although I didn't bother creating an account to check them out - however, if you want to... ;) Anyhow, see what you think. EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EyeSerene, I signed up for librarything and found a better photo, although it is smaller. I changed this picture to be the defaut photo when you go to cisneros's bio page here the copyright to me seems okay..."credit Ruben Guzman, copyright 1) Permission for use given by publisher, Knopf (Random House). 2) Email forwarded to Abby." I'm not sure how to upload a photo, if you are able to that would be great or if it is not possible without signing into librarything, let me know.Thanks!Heathermary (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)heathermary

I agree, that photo does look better, but we need to be very certain about its copyright status. I have to work away for the next couple of days, but if you don't mind waiting I'll take a look when I get back (or you can ask any of the various editors who've helped out here, like User:Geometry guy, User:Jackyd101 etc) EyeSerene^talk 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at those pictures (I signed up too!), and unfortunately I don't think we'll be able to use any of them :( Their copyright permissions are for use on LibraryThing only, and we need a less restrictive release than that. Back to the drawing board... EyeSerene^talk 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)