User:DiscardedDream/photos

PLAN

Okay, so here is our plan to begin our article.

1. Meet up weekly to share articles that we've found online and visit the library for further references. Done
2. Write up our bibliography list  Done
3. Expand on what we've started so far and decide headings(such as History, Theme etc,)
4. Begin with introduction and continue with a detailed discussion of the plot (making a summary)
5. Go into detail after our summary to cover the major themes and characters
6. Expand on the history relating to the book by familiarizing ourselves with author as well as reception and criticism of the book.
7. Create an additional section; Style (the irony and critism)
8. After we have a rough draft of each heading, we will log in frequently to add and revise
9. From our research and further readings, we hope that more themes/aspects will come to light to clarify ideas we already have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annac89 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC) --Annac89 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

1. make the transition from a stub, mid-important article to a featured article --Nicolecruz (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Important dates (from North de Rio Grande page)

1. September 26, - bibliography, submit article for peer review.
2. November 10- Good article nominations.
3. November 26-featured article candidacy submission

--Nicolecruz (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good plan. You can of course add to it over time. And cross things off when you've done them, including adding a big green checkmark {{done}}  Done. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Alemán, Jesse (2007), "Citizenship Rights and Colonial Whites: The Cultural Work of María Amparo Ruiz de Burton's Novels", in Goldstein, David S.; Thacker, Audrey B. (eds.), Complicating Constructions: Race, Ethnicity, and Hybridity in American Texts, Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, pp. 3–30, ISBN 9780295986814.

• Alemán, Jesse (2004), ""Thank God, Lolita Is Away from Those Horrid Savages": The Politics of Whiteness in Who Would Have Thought It?", in de la Luz Montes, Amelia María; Goldman, Anne E. (eds.), María Amparo Ruiz de Burton: Critical and Pedagogical Perspectives, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 95–111, ISBN 978-0803203983.

• Aranda, Jr., José F. (September 1998), "Contradictory Impulses: María Amparo Ruiz de Burton, Resistance Theory, and the Politics of Chicano/a Studies", American Literature: A Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography, 70 (3): 551–579, retrieved 2009-09-25{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

• Bost, Suzanne (Fall 2003), "West Meets East: Nineteenth-Century Southern Dialogues on Mixture, Race, Gender, and Nation", Mississippi Quarterly: The Journal of Southern Cultures, 56 (4): 647–656, retrieved 2008-09-25{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

• Deines, Timothy. "Interrogating the Moral Contract in Ruiz de Burton's The Squatter and the Don." REAL: The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 22 (2006): 269-289.

  How much is this about Who Would Have Thought It??

• de la Luz Montes, Amelia María (2000), "Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton Negotiates American Literary Politics and Culture", in Warren, Joyce W.; Dickie, Margaret (eds.), Challenging Boundaries: Gender and Periodization, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, pp. 202–225, ISBN 9780820321240.

• González, Ray Marcial. "The Postmodern Turn in Chicana/o Cultural Studies: Toward a Dialectical Criticism." Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 61.9 (Mar. 2001): 3565-3565.

  How much is this about Who Would Have Thought It??

• Hendrick, Joan D. (April 1996), "Tarnishing the Gilded Age. Review of Who Would Have Thought It?", The Women's Review of Books, 13 (7): 6, retrieved 2008-09-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

• Jacobs, Margaret D. (2001), "Mixed-Bloods, Mestizas, and Pintos: Race, Gender, and Claims to Whiteness in Helen Hunt Jackson's Ramona and María Amparo Ruiz de Burton's Who Would Have Thought It?", Western American Literature, 36 (3): 212–231, retrieved 2008-09-30 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help).

• Pita, Beatrice. "Engendering Critique: Race, Class, and Gender in Ruiz de Burton and Martí." José Martí's 'Our America': From National to Hemispheric Cultural Studies. 129-144. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1998.

• Rivera, John-Michael. The Emergence of Mexican America: Recovering Stories of Mexican Peoplehood in U.S. Culture New York, NY: New York UP, 2006.

• Rivera, John-Michael (2004), "Embodying Greater Mexico: María Amparo Ruiz de Burton and the Reconstruction of the Mexican Question", in Smith, Jon; Cohn, Deborah (eds.), Look Away! The U.S. South in New World Studies, Durham, NC: Duke Univesity Press, pp. 451–470, ISBN 978-0822333166.

• Rodriguez, Arlene (2008), "In order to form a more perfect union": Interethnic/Interracial Romances, Unions, and Nation Formation in Helen Hunt Jackson, Maria Amparo Ruiz de Burton, Elizabeth Van Deusen, and Manuel Zeno Gandia, Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst, retrieved 2009-09-25. Ph.D. dissertation. Publication No. AAT 3152740.

• Sánchez, María Carla (2001), Sánchez, María Carla; Schlossberg, Linda (eds.), Passing: Identity and Interpretation in Sexuality, Race, and Religion, New York: New York University Press, pp. 64–91, ISBN 0-8147-8123-3. Who Would Have Thought It in relation to other Chichano books that suceeded it. It also mentions the treaty of Hidalgo Page 67,81-87

• Warford, Elisa Leigh (2006), Americans in the Golden State: The Rhetoric of Identity in Four California Social Protest Novels, College Park: University of Maryland, retrieved 2009-09-25. Ph.D. dissertation. Publication No. AAT 3212550.

NB I'm helping out to format these a bit. But you put them up as best as you can, with as much information as you can; don't worry about the fancy stuff. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on bibliography This is a decent start, and fairly comprehensive. You'll also be wanting to annotate these references as you get hold of them and start working with them to improve the article. There is or was some missing information for some of these references. Good luck! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference problem

OK, there's a problem with the following reference:

This novel was the first to be written in English by a Mexican living in the United States."[1]

The first problem is where does the quotation start? There's a closing quotation mark, but not an opening one. The second problem is that we need an exact pagee number. At present the footnote states "Rivera 2006, p. 82." But in the reference, the Rivera article is from 2004, and takes up pages 451-470. So the reference is wrong at preent. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The quote comes from Rivera 2006 page 82. The entire book article is from page 82-109 I will make the necessary corrections on the quote. Thank You--Nicolecruz (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand... The book article that is in the references starts on page 451. Is there some other Rivera article that is not included in the References? This needs to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, now I've fixed this. 1) It wasn't a quotation, so I removed the quotation mark. 2) It was a reference to a different book, other than the one included in the References section, so I removed the book that was there and added the right one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I note that the other two quotations from this book were mis-transcribed, and either had no page number or had the wrong page number. I fixed these.[1] [2] But beware. You must be accurate when citing from sources! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary

I note that there's been movement on the plot summary, which is grand. But do take a look not only at your model articles (such as The General in His Labyrinth and El Señor Presidente), where you'll see how much space a plot summary takes up, but also this guideline. A plot summary should be around 300-500 words. I note that you guys have written 718 words already, and not got past page 25... You're going to have to be much more concise than this. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way... Again, the point is to use the bibliography you have compiled, rather than simply to go through the plot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article so far. Plot summaries are difficult to get right, but it's better to have too much than too little, as it can always be snipped... ;) EyeSerene^talk 19:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EyeSerene. Ignore your professor :-) and write-write-write. Then sleep-sleep-sleep. Then cut-cut-cut! (On wikipedia, the technical term for the last stage is "copyediting" :-) Geometry guy 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)