![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Author | Arthur Ransome |
---|---|
Illustrator | 1st edition was not illustrated, later editions illustrated by Clifford Webb and later Arthur Ransome |
Cover artist | Steven Spurrier |
Language | English |
Series | Swallows and Amazons series |
Genre | Children's, adventure novel |
Publisher | Jonathan Cape |
Publication date | 1 December 1930 |
Publication place | United Kingdom |
OCLC | 5973192 |
Followed by | Swallowdale |
MarnetteD, re your recent reverts here and for other Dickens' novels, I believe that the word "series" in this template refers to a sequence of novels, i.e. C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series, or the Biggles series, etc., etc. I therefore found it confusing when used for serialized 19th century novels. However, the dictionary would seem to support you, though you might check further. I'll ask a copy editor for an opinion. Anyhow Is this information really needed on the Infobox?
Re the date of first publication, this should be 1860–1, because the serial version pre-dates the first edition of 1861 (Oxford Companion to English Literature, etc.). I also find that the listing the number of pages irrelevant, and rather meaningless. The total number of words would make a little more sense, but I wouldn't include it.
The article Serial (literature) doesn't clarify this. Rwood128 ( talk) 20:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Why would I delete your comment? It may have been that I was editing online when you posted, but that should have led to edit conflict? Call it some kind of computer glitch.
I'm very sorry that my edits have angered you, but as you did not respond to my edit to The Great Expectations, I honestly thought that the compromised solution (which I further revised with corrections suggested by CorinneSD) wasn't at all controversial. I will await further developments, including corrections, and the supporting evidence. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
As I posted above this is where you need to go Template talk:Infobox book to change things regarding the terms. You keep opening sub threads to the main topic that is why it is hard to follow the various replies. MarnetteD| Talk 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I understand the difference in the terms and yes I understand what I've read and what has been said above. As you say you are the one who is lost so it would seem the comprehension problems are not on my side. I have explained things concisely and provided links to further your understanding. Your posts indicate that you want the info in the "series" field in the infobox changed to "serialised" and that can only be done at the talk page for the template. MarnetteD| Talk 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I was asking advice in order to try and improve the article and not ganging-up on you, hence my providing you with a link. A person's Talk page is an accessible public domain, unlike an email , conversation or telephone call. But I agree that it might have been better to have moved the subsequent discussion to the main G.E. page. Surely there is no need to be so hostile, I enjoy collaborating and hate conflict!!!!!! Rwood128 ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD I'm quite surprised by your tone, Marnette. There was on-going discussion right on this page, in this section. On March 21, I responded to Rwood128's response (made at 20:44, 21 March 2015) to your edit and edit summary. We continued discussing this on this page. We also discussed it on Rwood128's talk page. But you did not respond to any of our comments here until two days later, on March 23. I had the same impression as Rwood128, that you were either going along with, or were no longer interested in, the edits to the infobox. It is disingenuous to say we were discussing something in a place where you couldn't find it since part of our discussion was here on this page. Also, in your edit summary, you pointed to the article Serial (literature). I read the article and pointed out (above) that the word "series" (the use of which word you seemed to be supporting for the infobox) only appeared twice in that article, and both times only with regard to radio and television. You could have, but still haven't, explained why you suggested we read that article. You also haven't responded to anything I have written on this page (except, just now, to my suggestion that "novel" was more accessible to the average reader, including young people, than "realistic fiction"; note that I said "young people", not "children"). The talk page of an article is a place to discuss things before taking them to a project page or initiating a RFC. You dropped out of sight for two days. Edits were made, and then you come back and suggest we didn't include you in the discussion. Come on, MarnetteD. To say that a particular type of edit to an infobox needs to be discussed at a project page because it affects a template is a valid point, but your tone is really hostile. I have had very little interaction with you until now, and I am surprised and disappointed at your accusatory tone. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Using [[User:User name]] provides a notification to the editor that his/her name was mentioned in a discussion, and provides a link to that location. I don't know why you wouldn't receive such a notification. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Asking for a copy editor's opinion is not canvassing. If CorinneSD had agreed with you, I would have respected her judgement. I chose this editor only because she has an interest in good writing. Thanks for clarifying consensus – three sounds very reasonable, but if only three people actually participate, what is the rule? Anyhow, I have now asked the opinion of someone knowledgable about series, and who is involved with Project Novel. This conversation will probably now continue at Project Novel [6]
By the way you need to read the discussion about Our Mutual Friend a little more carefully; you choose ignore the final conclusion by the other editor. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 ( talk) 15:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead ends with a sentence claiming Dickens said this book was his best. The source supporting the quote (which I filled out from the source) does not address that, but rather his enthusiasm for the plot idea before he wrote the book, from what I could read on line from the source. Is there a stronger source to back up that claim of Dickens's own evaluation? The quoted line is one he wrote to a friend before he wrote the book, not after. The same quote is in the body of the article as well. I am not a scholar on this topic, but I like the sources to back up such strong claims. My inclination is to alter the last sentence to match the quote -- that he was quite pleased with the ideas he had formed before writing the book, unless there is a more precise source for that sentence. After the book was published, there is a quote about how the novel was well-received and selling well, but that is not the same as being judged best among the author's own novels. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are some citations enclosed in brackets? I don't know how to correct this. Rwood128 ( talk) 01:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Prairieplant for his advice and kind words and to Rotideypoc41352 also, especially for his work on this article. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This section is incoherent and should probably be deleted – I don't think it can be easily paraphrased. Rwood128 ( talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your comment Rotideypoc41352, but too tired to do anything. But will check tomorrow, if possible. Rwood128 ( talk) 22:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is the article a few edits after promotion to GA. The Imperialism section looks the same, so if the problem lies in the French article, that doesn't help.
From what I can tell, the section wants to say: Said proposes that Pip and Magwitch's relations be viewed in the context of British imperialism and the British attitude toward their colonies. He claims that Magwitch risking his life to return makes Pip look awesome and does nothing else. Pip in Cairo and Magwitch in Australia similarly invalidates Magwitch's perspective. Said states the relation between Pip and Magwitch reflects the British view of the colonies as only machines for their own economic expansion. And then the Open Uni course states Said bases his argument on a shaky assumption.
As a layperson, I'm not sure what else we can do short of calling in an expert. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 03:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The diagram, in this section, needs to be translated -- though is it really useful, even in English? I feel that it should simply be deleted.
Also aren't there now too many short sections in the article? "Style", for example, might be made in one section. More attention, perhaps, needs to be made to overall coherence and unity? Rwood128 ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rotideypoc41352. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Rotideypoc41352 I'm beginning to wonder about the overall organization of the article. For example, I see some sections which look like they need to be combined: 10.21 "Wealth" and 10.42 "Wealth corrupts"; 10.22 "Gentility" and 10.42 "Failure of gentility". Plus 10.43 "Neither Wealth", etc. Or is it simply that better links are needed between the various sections?
The theme section badly needs an expanded introductory section and much tighter organization. It is now fragmented and repetitive. I'm beginning to think that the original French article isn't as good as you have indicated, because the problems seem to originate there – as far as I can judge – rather than from from your translation. Sorry to be so critical, given all your hard work. Rwood128 ( talk) 21:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 All your effort is paying off handsomely, I think. This article begins to look what I somehow expected the first time I found it, and back then, it disappointed. Now, I have learned new terms, like Silver fork novel, and I see how many students of literature have written about this novel, why they think its structure is perfect, or near perfect, and have light shed on parts of the plot that I did not understand as well as they (those experts of literature) did. Re-organization of sections is making sense to me. The only tiny thing that annoys me is a section with just one subsection. I was always taught that two are needed or keep it as one section with one title. Perhaps I am the only person so educated; certainly not a main issue. The main issue is all this solid analysis of a fascinating novel. With all that has been added, the Background section might be broken up to fit into the more specific sections now existing. The Development history section might have pieces like that as well. Plus it seems to me that section belongs after Plot and Characters, at the least, as it is odd to read about two endings before reading about the beginning, the middle and the published ending. But this is beyond the work you have been doing so steadily. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Prairieplant for the praise and Rwood128 for the copyediting. I agree that the organization of the French article is not the best, but I think it contains content that the English article needs. Based on your comments, I will complete translation of the Style section, as it contains content that will improve this article. Please feel free to reorganize the sections as you see fit. I'm not sure how to go about writing the Themes intro; I may just end up removing the unclear sentences in "Pip's pilgrimage". Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The following sentences don't make sense: "Trotter emphasizes the importance of Magwitch's greasy banknotes. Beyond the protagonist's psychological emotions, Trotter notes, they reveal the author's views on social and economic progress ten to fifteen years before publication of Great Expectations."
Also what is a "psychological emotion"? This whole section lacks coherence and needs to be re-written. I suspect that weak " topic sentences" are a problem elsewhere in the article, especially in the "Theme" section. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The basic argument can be summarised quite briefly and added to the "Wealth" section. But I'd suggest deleting this section. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There is some discussion of symbolism (and imagery) in the "Themes" section" that might easily be transferred to the section "Symbolism". Rwood128 ( talk) 15:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't describe a novel set within Dickens' life an historical novel, and think that you need to justify calling it one – see Middlemarch. Rwood128 ( talk) 11:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Great Expectations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
One problem with this article is that it contains (contained) a fair amount of plagiarism. One entire section entitled "Themes and Analysis," which I've deleted was simply cut and pasted in from SparkNotes. ````C. Penna |
Last edited at 05:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted a long string of changes that added about 500 words to the already long plot summary. It is nothing personal, just that this book is full of interesting details, and all of them cannot be put in the Plot summary. The article discusses most of the important issues in other sections, with citations. The summary can always be improved, but length has to be a consideration in this section of the article. WP:PLOTSUM has guidelines. If a detail is to be added, then look to remove another of lesser importance. This problem arises with many articles about novels, especially novels filled with details that make them notable and so good. I hope we can work together on this, as we have on other sections. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 11:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The current summary seems to be long enough, it is, however, still a little disjointed. By the way, Mathsci, what is the relationship between this text and Paul Davis's book? That is, are there phrases that should be in italics? how have you avoided plagiarism? Rwood128 ( talk) 18:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I realise that my comment was a little rude (blunt). Rwood128 ( talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I found the plot summary inaccurate and unsourced. I used the plot summary in the reference of Paul Davis to correct the source. Prairieplant vandalised my changes, which involved many edits and careful thought. His editing was disruptive and seemed to display WP:OWN.The source of Davis, while not perfect, provided a good summary chapter by chapter. It is eight pages long. The previous plot summary had the disadvantage that the main lines of the plot were disjointed and characters appeared out of the blue because no context was provided. The previous summary was the invention of wikipedians: it was unreliable. I checked against a source. Per WP:BRD, Prairieplant should explain his edits here. His edits so far appear to be no more than vandalism. He has ignored the edit summaries. Most of the comic parts in the novel have been suppressed in the summary; there is no justification, however, for introducing characters without context. I used two other published plot summaries as well as the original text to improve the plot summary. Startop was mentioned only once in the plot (the rescue of Pip from Orlick); readers would have no idea who he was; a third person helping Startop and Herbert was omitted. Prairieplant can discuss the version I have produced. I have not added inline page numbers, but that is easy enough to do. Prairieplant should know that telling an experienced editor to edit in a sandbox is a non-starter. Why did he do so? Mathsci ( talk) 11:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant misquotes wikipedia policy to me. For the final paragraph, I inserted "He visits Joe, Biddy and their son Pip." I took that from Davis' summary. Can Prairieplant start by explaining why, in his blanket reversion, he removed that? Is it his personal view that it is an irrelevant detail? It is precisely because wikipedians' views of books are unreliable that content is based on reliable secondary sources. I am not upset (as Prairieplant suggested in an edit summary on my user talk page): I am stupefied. Mathsci ( talk) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Great Expectations. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As he had become well off/a reformed character surely he could have petitioned to have his sentence ended and be allowed to return to the UK?
How would he have got back to the UK other than on an official ship?
Would anyone in the have been able to recognize him 'a decade or so after his last appearance and in a different social class ('businessman/tradesman' rather than 'convict'), especially given that there were no photographs (or at least not of people of his rank) and no official identification (and he could say 'oh that is my cousin, the scoundrel and we don't talk about him')? 89.197.114.132 ( talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Prairieplant I was tempted to delete the above comment by ( talk) , given the pattern of his/her edits. What do you think? Rwood128 ( talk) 16:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Prairieplant. I'll wait and see for now. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The date stated at beginning of plot summary should be 1807-1810, not 1812. Originally posted by 2a01:5c0:17:9121:f9ea:1dfc:c994:ef8c Rwood128 ( talk) 11:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The following comment was made in the edit summary: "he excellent general reference provided below the article (Mary Edminson (1958), "The Date of the Action in Great Expectations", Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 13 (1): 22–35, JSTOR 3044100) should be used as the source reference for establishing the date of action of the novel. This reference is far more well researched and logically sound than ref. 11 given in the text of the article. Furthermore, this general reference lays out an enjoyable and challenging sort of detective story, identifyi...) (" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 ( talk • contribs) 9:32 22 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Author | Arthur Ransome |
---|---|
Illustrator | 1st edition was not illustrated, later editions illustrated by Clifford Webb and later Arthur Ransome |
Cover artist | Steven Spurrier |
Language | English |
Series | Swallows and Amazons series |
Genre | Children's, adventure novel |
Publisher | Jonathan Cape |
Publication date | 1 December 1930 |
Publication place | United Kingdom |
OCLC | 5973192 |
Followed by | Swallowdale |
MarnetteD, re your recent reverts here and for other Dickens' novels, I believe that the word "series" in this template refers to a sequence of novels, i.e. C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series, or the Biggles series, etc., etc. I therefore found it confusing when used for serialized 19th century novels. However, the dictionary would seem to support you, though you might check further. I'll ask a copy editor for an opinion. Anyhow Is this information really needed on the Infobox?
Re the date of first publication, this should be 1860–1, because the serial version pre-dates the first edition of 1861 (Oxford Companion to English Literature, etc.). I also find that the listing the number of pages irrelevant, and rather meaningless. The total number of words would make a little more sense, but I wouldn't include it.
The article Serial (literature) doesn't clarify this. Rwood128 ( talk) 20:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Why would I delete your comment? It may have been that I was editing online when you posted, but that should have led to edit conflict? Call it some kind of computer glitch.
I'm very sorry that my edits have angered you, but as you did not respond to my edit to The Great Expectations, I honestly thought that the compromised solution (which I further revised with corrections suggested by CorinneSD) wasn't at all controversial. I will await further developments, including corrections, and the supporting evidence. Rwood128 ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
As I posted above this is where you need to go Template talk:Infobox book to change things regarding the terms. You keep opening sub threads to the main topic that is why it is hard to follow the various replies. MarnetteD| Talk 18:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I understand the difference in the terms and yes I understand what I've read and what has been said above. As you say you are the one who is lost so it would seem the comprehension problems are not on my side. I have explained things concisely and provided links to further your understanding. Your posts indicate that you want the info in the "series" field in the infobox changed to "serialised" and that can only be done at the talk page for the template. MarnetteD| Talk 18:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I was asking advice in order to try and improve the article and not ganging-up on you, hence my providing you with a link. A person's Talk page is an accessible public domain, unlike an email , conversation or telephone call. But I agree that it might have been better to have moved the subsequent discussion to the main G.E. page. Surely there is no need to be so hostile, I enjoy collaborating and hate conflict!!!!!! Rwood128 ( talk) 16:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD I'm quite surprised by your tone, Marnette. There was on-going discussion right on this page, in this section. On March 21, I responded to Rwood128's response (made at 20:44, 21 March 2015) to your edit and edit summary. We continued discussing this on this page. We also discussed it on Rwood128's talk page. But you did not respond to any of our comments here until two days later, on March 23. I had the same impression as Rwood128, that you were either going along with, or were no longer interested in, the edits to the infobox. It is disingenuous to say we were discussing something in a place where you couldn't find it since part of our discussion was here on this page. Also, in your edit summary, you pointed to the article Serial (literature). I read the article and pointed out (above) that the word "series" (the use of which word you seemed to be supporting for the infobox) only appeared twice in that article, and both times only with regard to radio and television. You could have, but still haven't, explained why you suggested we read that article. You also haven't responded to anything I have written on this page (except, just now, to my suggestion that "novel" was more accessible to the average reader, including young people, than "realistic fiction"; note that I said "young people", not "children"). The talk page of an article is a place to discuss things before taking them to a project page or initiating a RFC. You dropped out of sight for two days. Edits were made, and then you come back and suggest we didn't include you in the discussion. Come on, MarnetteD. To say that a particular type of edit to an infobox needs to be discussed at a project page because it affects a template is a valid point, but your tone is really hostile. I have had very little interaction with you until now, and I am surprised and disappointed at your accusatory tone. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Using [[User:User name]] provides a notification to the editor that his/her name was mentioned in a discussion, and provides a link to that location. I don't know why you wouldn't receive such a notification. CorinneSD ( talk) 01:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Asking for a copy editor's opinion is not canvassing. If CorinneSD had agreed with you, I would have respected her judgement. I chose this editor only because she has an interest in good writing. Thanks for clarifying consensus – three sounds very reasonable, but if only three people actually participate, what is the rule? Anyhow, I have now asked the opinion of someone knowledgable about series, and who is involved with Project Novel. This conversation will probably now continue at Project Novel [6]
By the way you need to read the discussion about Our Mutual Friend a little more carefully; you choose ignore the final conclusion by the other editor. Rwood128 ( talk) 13:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 ( talk) 15:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead ends with a sentence claiming Dickens said this book was his best. The source supporting the quote (which I filled out from the source) does not address that, but rather his enthusiasm for the plot idea before he wrote the book, from what I could read on line from the source. Is there a stronger source to back up that claim of Dickens's own evaluation? The quoted line is one he wrote to a friend before he wrote the book, not after. The same quote is in the body of the article as well. I am not a scholar on this topic, but I like the sources to back up such strong claims. My inclination is to alter the last sentence to match the quote -- that he was quite pleased with the ideas he had formed before writing the book, unless there is a more precise source for that sentence. After the book was published, there is a quote about how the novel was well-received and selling well, but that is not the same as being judged best among the author's own novels. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 06:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are some citations enclosed in brackets? I don't know how to correct this. Rwood128 ( talk) 01:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Prairieplant for his advice and kind words and to Rotideypoc41352 also, especially for his work on this article. Rwood128 ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This section is incoherent and should probably be deleted – I don't think it can be easily paraphrased. Rwood128 ( talk) 20:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your comment Rotideypoc41352, but too tired to do anything. But will check tomorrow, if possible. Rwood128 ( talk) 22:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is the article a few edits after promotion to GA. The Imperialism section looks the same, so if the problem lies in the French article, that doesn't help.
From what I can tell, the section wants to say: Said proposes that Pip and Magwitch's relations be viewed in the context of British imperialism and the British attitude toward their colonies. He claims that Magwitch risking his life to return makes Pip look awesome and does nothing else. Pip in Cairo and Magwitch in Australia similarly invalidates Magwitch's perspective. Said states the relation between Pip and Magwitch reflects the British view of the colonies as only machines for their own economic expansion. And then the Open Uni course states Said bases his argument on a shaky assumption.
As a layperson, I'm not sure what else we can do short of calling in an expert. Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 03:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The diagram, in this section, needs to be translated -- though is it really useful, even in English? I feel that it should simply be deleted.
Also aren't there now too many short sections in the article? "Style", for example, might be made in one section. More attention, perhaps, needs to be made to overall coherence and unity? Rwood128 ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rotideypoc41352. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Rotideypoc41352 I'm beginning to wonder about the overall organization of the article. For example, I see some sections which look like they need to be combined: 10.21 "Wealth" and 10.42 "Wealth corrupts"; 10.22 "Gentility" and 10.42 "Failure of gentility". Plus 10.43 "Neither Wealth", etc. Or is it simply that better links are needed between the various sections?
The theme section badly needs an expanded introductory section and much tighter organization. It is now fragmented and repetitive. I'm beginning to think that the original French article isn't as good as you have indicated, because the problems seem to originate there – as far as I can judge – rather than from from your translation. Sorry to be so critical, given all your hard work. Rwood128 ( talk) 21:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 All your effort is paying off handsomely, I think. This article begins to look what I somehow expected the first time I found it, and back then, it disappointed. Now, I have learned new terms, like Silver fork novel, and I see how many students of literature have written about this novel, why they think its structure is perfect, or near perfect, and have light shed on parts of the plot that I did not understand as well as they (those experts of literature) did. Re-organization of sections is making sense to me. The only tiny thing that annoys me is a section with just one subsection. I was always taught that two are needed or keep it as one section with one title. Perhaps I am the only person so educated; certainly not a main issue. The main issue is all this solid analysis of a fascinating novel. With all that has been added, the Background section might be broken up to fit into the more specific sections now existing. The Development history section might have pieces like that as well. Plus it seems to me that section belongs after Plot and Characters, at the least, as it is odd to read about two endings before reading about the beginning, the middle and the published ending. But this is beyond the work you have been doing so steadily. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 07:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to Prairieplant for the praise and Rwood128 for the copyediting. I agree that the organization of the French article is not the best, but I think it contains content that the English article needs. Based on your comments, I will complete translation of the Style section, as it contains content that will improve this article. Please feel free to reorganize the sections as you see fit. I'm not sure how to go about writing the Themes intro; I may just end up removing the unclear sentences in "Pip's pilgrimage". Rotideypoc41352 ( talk) 01:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The following sentences don't make sense: "Trotter emphasizes the importance of Magwitch's greasy banknotes. Beyond the protagonist's psychological emotions, Trotter notes, they reveal the author's views on social and economic progress ten to fifteen years before publication of Great Expectations."
Also what is a "psychological emotion"? This whole section lacks coherence and needs to be re-written. I suspect that weak " topic sentences" are a problem elsewhere in the article, especially in the "Theme" section. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The basic argument can be summarised quite briefly and added to the "Wealth" section. But I'd suggest deleting this section. Rwood128 ( talk) 12:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There is some discussion of symbolism (and imagery) in the "Themes" section" that might easily be transferred to the section "Symbolism". Rwood128 ( talk) 15:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't describe a novel set within Dickens' life an historical novel, and think that you need to justify calling it one – see Middlemarch. Rwood128 ( talk) 11:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Great Expectations/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
One problem with this article is that it contains (contained) a fair amount of plagiarism. One entire section entitled "Themes and Analysis," which I've deleted was simply cut and pasted in from SparkNotes. ````C. Penna |
Last edited at 05:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I just reverted a long string of changes that added about 500 words to the already long plot summary. It is nothing personal, just that this book is full of interesting details, and all of them cannot be put in the Plot summary. The article discusses most of the important issues in other sections, with citations. The summary can always be improved, but length has to be a consideration in this section of the article. WP:PLOTSUM has guidelines. If a detail is to be added, then look to remove another of lesser importance. This problem arises with many articles about novels, especially novels filled with details that make them notable and so good. I hope we can work together on this, as we have on other sections. -- Prairieplant ( talk) 11:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The current summary seems to be long enough, it is, however, still a little disjointed. By the way, Mathsci, what is the relationship between this text and Paul Davis's book? That is, are there phrases that should be in italics? how have you avoided plagiarism? Rwood128 ( talk) 18:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I realise that my comment was a little rude (blunt). Rwood128 ( talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I found the plot summary inaccurate and unsourced. I used the plot summary in the reference of Paul Davis to correct the source. Prairieplant vandalised my changes, which involved many edits and careful thought. His editing was disruptive and seemed to display WP:OWN.The source of Davis, while not perfect, provided a good summary chapter by chapter. It is eight pages long. The previous plot summary had the disadvantage that the main lines of the plot were disjointed and characters appeared out of the blue because no context was provided. The previous summary was the invention of wikipedians: it was unreliable. I checked against a source. Per WP:BRD, Prairieplant should explain his edits here. His edits so far appear to be no more than vandalism. He has ignored the edit summaries. Most of the comic parts in the novel have been suppressed in the summary; there is no justification, however, for introducing characters without context. I used two other published plot summaries as well as the original text to improve the plot summary. Startop was mentioned only once in the plot (the rescue of Pip from Orlick); readers would have no idea who he was; a third person helping Startop and Herbert was omitted. Prairieplant can discuss the version I have produced. I have not added inline page numbers, but that is easy enough to do. Prairieplant should know that telling an experienced editor to edit in a sandbox is a non-starter. Why did he do so? Mathsci ( talk) 11:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant misquotes wikipedia policy to me. For the final paragraph, I inserted "He visits Joe, Biddy and their son Pip." I took that from Davis' summary. Can Prairieplant start by explaining why, in his blanket reversion, he removed that? Is it his personal view that it is an irrelevant detail? It is precisely because wikipedians' views of books are unreliable that content is based on reliable secondary sources. I am not upset (as Prairieplant suggested in an edit summary on my user talk page): I am stupefied. Mathsci ( talk) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Great Expectations. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As he had become well off/a reformed character surely he could have petitioned to have his sentence ended and be allowed to return to the UK?
How would he have got back to the UK other than on an official ship?
Would anyone in the have been able to recognize him 'a decade or so after his last appearance and in a different social class ('businessman/tradesman' rather than 'convict'), especially given that there were no photographs (or at least not of people of his rank) and no official identification (and he could say 'oh that is my cousin, the scoundrel and we don't talk about him')? 89.197.114.132 ( talk) 14:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Prairieplant I was tempted to delete the above comment by ( talk) , given the pattern of his/her edits. What do you think? Rwood128 ( talk) 16:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Prairieplant. I'll wait and see for now. Rwood128 ( talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
The date stated at beginning of plot summary should be 1807-1810, not 1812. Originally posted by 2a01:5c0:17:9121:f9ea:1dfc:c994:ef8c Rwood128 ( talk) 11:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The following comment was made in the edit summary: "he excellent general reference provided below the article (Mary Edminson (1958), "The Date of the Action in Great Expectations", Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 13 (1): 22–35, JSTOR 3044100) should be used as the source reference for establishing the date of action of the novel. This reference is far more well researched and logically sound than ref. 11 given in the text of the article. Furthermore, this general reference lays out an enjoyable and challenging sort of detective story, identifyi...) (" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwood128 ( talk • contribs) 9:32 22 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |