The Secret Agent received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure that I agree with Benna that Wikipedia "doesn't review movies" (edit 4th October). My other comments in the piece "...very atmospheric..." and "...extremely sinister..." were not edited out by Benna. How can you describe a film without offering some comment on its merits? As I recall (and it's a long time ago that I saw it) the Hitchcock film is embarrassingly bad. Peter Maggs 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Not being able to render an opinion on the comment, since it was edited out, I will say that, as an unlearned member of the peanut gallery, I know what "very atmospheric" and "extremely sinister" mean. Apart from the fact they can be slimmed down to "atmospheric and sinister," I see no good reason for censoring them from Wp. Haven't you read Wp articles on other films? [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 ( talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
suggested external link:
Free audiobook from LibriVox.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackinaw ( talk • contribs) 09:36, March 15, 2006
Currently, there is one piece of "trivia" listed in this section and it runs as follows:
This phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of effect did it have? What evidence? How did Conrad's novel influence Kaczynski? It would be nice if this could be clarified by whoever wrote this, otherwise I think it needs to be deleted. -- Todeswalzer 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No one's clarified the meaning of this sentence so I've removed it from the article. -- Todeswalzer 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed from the article the text of the dedication to HG Wells...
... included by Dpapic, because it doesn't, on its own, add much to the article. I also don't know of any other articles discussing specific novels where the dedication has been included ver batim. However, it might be nice to know why Conrad chose to dedicate this novel to HG Wells: please, Dpapic, include this information (perhaps somewhere in the lead section) if you happen to know it. -- Todeswalzer| Talk 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking up this article, and almost not having checked out the Talk page, I think the dedication would have added substantial information to my knowledge and understanding of the book. I wish someone would put it back in. CC (It's particularly interesting if you know of Wells' socialist slant. CC)
Can someone render an opinion on the historicity of this novel? Is it based on an event that actually happened? Or, were there other events sufficiently close to this going on at that time?
Much appreciate it.
Great novel; a good article on it, too. [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 ( talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the Kaczynski section's inclusion in this article. a) as a paragraph, it has more words in it than either of the two sections about the book. b) it has the effect of adding sensationalist mystique to the book, constructing the book in a way that it appears to have central significance to Kaczynski's crimes. The book is absolutely prescient and relevant for a variety of reasons in the contemporary world. The narrative can be traced in endless revolutionary/terrorist actions -- so it seems to be silly to focus on this one event. (not to mention that the same paragraph exists verbatim in the Kaczynski article)
I propose removal of the Kaczynski paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.125.240 ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally - nice article; it interested me enough to make me want to read the book, so that's a great sign.
I've corrected spelling and typos.
The references need a bit of tidying up. No ISBNs in the refs, Referencing the book several times - I think it might be clearer/simpler to just have ONE reference to the book itself, listing all the page numbers you reference, ie
<ref name="The secret agent">{{cite book | first=Joseph | last=Conrad | date=1994 | title=The Secret Agent | publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin]] | pages=5, 18, 35-40| isbn=x-xxxxxx-xx-x}} </ref>
...and then just
<ref name="The Secret Agent"/>
on the others.
Unless there is some reason you need to reference different editions?
I suggest change "hansom" to "Hansom cab" for clarity
The link to Patrick Reilly doesn't exist - is the name misspelled?
Re. unabomber - is it possible to show any specifics that relate from the book to the unabomber actions?
Given the length of the article, I'd like to see 1 more picture in it, but I'm not sure what. Maybe a movie poster or something? Just to break things up a little.
HTH
Chzz ( talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re. multiple refs problem, here is an excerpt from WP:FOOT which is relevent;
Chzz ( talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
yes thats corect. Full bibliographic information included in the Bibliography, short citation (author, year/short title and page number) in the individual footnotes. This is all fairly basic. María ( habla con migo) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been some time since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure Ossipon isn't panicked by Mrs. Verloc's suicide - quite the opposite. Ossipon, who's a professional gigolo, betrays Mrs. Verloc and steals her money, driving her to suicide, about which he doesn't really know, but can guess and gets so disgusted with himself that it hampers his earning power, driving him to starvation - perhaps the synopsis on the page is from some movie? I think the synopsis should be much shorter anyway - the novel isn't about the action anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.215.172 ( talk) 09:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
by ryan agent of s.a.bm.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Secret Agent. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/english/documents/q3019_thomas.docWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Stage
Film
Television
Radio
References |
Archiving this
unsourced list of adaptations here. Feel free to reinstate with
reliable, independent sources. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 13:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
The Secret Agent received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure that I agree with Benna that Wikipedia "doesn't review movies" (edit 4th October). My other comments in the piece "...very atmospheric..." and "...extremely sinister..." were not edited out by Benna. How can you describe a film without offering some comment on its merits? As I recall (and it's a long time ago that I saw it) the Hitchcock film is embarrassingly bad. Peter Maggs 20:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Not being able to render an opinion on the comment, since it was edited out, I will say that, as an unlearned member of the peanut gallery, I know what "very atmospheric" and "extremely sinister" mean. Apart from the fact they can be slimmed down to "atmospheric and sinister," I see no good reason for censoring them from Wp. Haven't you read Wp articles on other films? [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 ( talk) 15:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
suggested external link:
Free audiobook from LibriVox.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackinaw ( talk • contribs) 09:36, March 15, 2006
Currently, there is one piece of "trivia" listed in this section and it runs as follows:
This phrase is so vague as to be meaningless. What kind of effect did it have? What evidence? How did Conrad's novel influence Kaczynski? It would be nice if this could be clarified by whoever wrote this, otherwise I think it needs to be deleted. -- Todeswalzer 18:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No one's clarified the meaning of this sentence so I've removed it from the article. -- Todeswalzer 02:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed from the article the text of the dedication to HG Wells...
... included by Dpapic, because it doesn't, on its own, add much to the article. I also don't know of any other articles discussing specific novels where the dedication has been included ver batim. However, it might be nice to know why Conrad chose to dedicate this novel to HG Wells: please, Dpapic, include this information (perhaps somewhere in the lead section) if you happen to know it. -- Todeswalzer| Talk 18:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking up this article, and almost not having checked out the Talk page, I think the dedication would have added substantial information to my knowledge and understanding of the book. I wish someone would put it back in. CC (It's particularly interesting if you know of Wells' socialist slant. CC)
Can someone render an opinion on the historicity of this novel? Is it based on an event that actually happened? Or, were there other events sufficiently close to this going on at that time?
Much appreciate it.
Great novel; a good article on it, too. [CC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.121.40 ( talk) 15:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty uncomfortable with the Kaczynski section's inclusion in this article. a) as a paragraph, it has more words in it than either of the two sections about the book. b) it has the effect of adding sensationalist mystique to the book, constructing the book in a way that it appears to have central significance to Kaczynski's crimes. The book is absolutely prescient and relevant for a variety of reasons in the contemporary world. The narrative can be traced in endless revolutionary/terrorist actions -- so it seems to be silly to focus on this one event. (not to mention that the same paragraph exists verbatim in the Kaczynski article)
I propose removal of the Kaczynski paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.125.240 ( talk) 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Generally - nice article; it interested me enough to make me want to read the book, so that's a great sign.
I've corrected spelling and typos.
The references need a bit of tidying up. No ISBNs in the refs, Referencing the book several times - I think it might be clearer/simpler to just have ONE reference to the book itself, listing all the page numbers you reference, ie
<ref name="The secret agent">{{cite book | first=Joseph | last=Conrad | date=1994 | title=The Secret Agent | publisher=[[Penguin Books|Penguin]] | pages=5, 18, 35-40| isbn=x-xxxxxx-xx-x}} </ref>
...and then just
<ref name="The Secret Agent"/>
on the others.
Unless there is some reason you need to reference different editions?
I suggest change "hansom" to "Hansom cab" for clarity
The link to Patrick Reilly doesn't exist - is the name misspelled?
Re. unabomber - is it possible to show any specifics that relate from the book to the unabomber actions?
Given the length of the article, I'd like to see 1 more picture in it, but I'm not sure what. Maybe a movie poster or something? Just to break things up a little.
HTH
Chzz ( talk) 12:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Re. multiple refs problem, here is an excerpt from WP:FOOT which is relevent;
Chzz ( talk) 15:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
yes thats corect. Full bibliographic information included in the Bibliography, short citation (author, year/short title and page number) in the individual footnotes. This is all fairly basic. María ( habla con migo) 16:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been some time since I read the book, but I'm pretty sure Ossipon isn't panicked by Mrs. Verloc's suicide - quite the opposite. Ossipon, who's a professional gigolo, betrays Mrs. Verloc and steals her money, driving her to suicide, about which he doesn't really know, but can guess and gets so disgusted with himself that it hampers his earning power, driving him to starvation - perhaps the synopsis on the page is from some movie? I think the synopsis should be much shorter anyway - the novel isn't about the action anyway... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.215.172 ( talk) 09:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
by ryan agent of s.a.bm.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Secret Agent. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/english/documents/q3019_thomas.docWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Stage
Film
Television
Radio
References |
Archiving this
unsourced list of adaptations here. Feel free to reinstate with
reliable, independent sources. (not
watching, please {{
ping}}
)
czar 13:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)