Jump to content

Talk:Great Expectations/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Series and serial

Swallows and Amazons
AuthorArthur Ransome
Illustrator1st edition was not illustrated, later editions illustrated by Clifford Webb and later Arthur Ransome
Cover artistSteven Spurrier
LanguageEnglish
SeriesSwallows and Amazons series
GenreChildren's, adventure novel
PublisherJonathan Cape
Publication date
1 December 1930
Publication placeUnited Kingdom
OCLC5973192
Followed bySwallowdale 

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)

I agree with User:Rwood128 that the word "series" is not the right word to use to describe the installments of the serialized format of Dickens' novels. The collective word for the individual parts should be either "serializations" or "installments". The format is "serialization". Perhaps "serialization" could be substituted for "series" in the infobox, if the line is deemed necessary. I think that if that line is included, it should be made clear that it was first published in that format and then published in full book format, and the dates for each should also be given. But I'm not sure that the exact dates of the serialization are needed in the infobox. Perhaps just the year(s) would be enough. The word "series" only appears twice in the article on Serial (literature), both times in reference to radio and television series (which is similar in use to the series of books described by Rwood128 above). Here is a sentence from the middle of the first paragraph in the section Serial (literature)#19th century including early 1900s (which I think is a strange heading):
  • The wild success of Charles Dickens' The Pickwick Papers, first published in 1836, is widely considered to have established the viability and appeal of the serialized format within periodical literature.
Regarding "genre", I think that both "fiction" (or some type of fiction, as in the infobox now) and "novel" can be considered genres. A novel is one category within fiction. Two others are "short story" and "novella", a short novel. Dickens' books were definitely novels, and "novel" is more specific than "Realistic fiction". I don't know which is better; I think the guideline here should be what is used in infoboxes in other articles about famous novels. CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The articles on Dickens' novels are likely to be read by young people, and "novel" may be more comprehensible to them than "Realistic fiction, etc." CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't taken in the phrase "realistic fiction". Dickens is most obviously not a realist. Furthermore "social criticism" is not a literary genre! Rwood128 (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Also note: "(the novel) the literary genre represented or exemplified by such works" (New Oxford American Dictionary); and the complete set of the serial version is a novel. Even the first edition is in three parts. Rwood128 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
We should have also considered this: [1]
First off using [[User:name]] does not ping the person that you are trying to contact {{u|name}} (there are a couple other variations of this but this is the main one) does. Next is is WP:BRD not BRDR. As to a serialised novel In literature, a serial is a publishing format by which a single large work, most often a work of narrative fiction, is presented in contiguous (typically chronological) installments—also known as numbers, parts, or fascicles—either issued as separate publications or appearing in sequential issues of a single is quite clear and I find it easy to understand. Dickens works were published in this format before they were published as novels. It should be noted that CD's works are not the only ones published in this format so any changes will have a broader effect on articles for WikiP articles for novels. Since the two of you have already been discussing this on your talk page I would suggest either a broader discussion at the Wikiproject Novel talk page or a WP:RFC also at the novel project to gain wider input. Whatever is decided there will be fine with me. Next, the suggestion that WikiP articles should be simplified for young readers is rather extraordinary - I thought that is what the links (like Serial (literature) which should stay in the infobox even if it is moved from where it currently is) and Wiktionary was for. For me it flies in the face of what WikiP is meant to be. I would think that a major discussion at the WP:MOS would need to occur for that to become policy. Lastly I know that you are both excellent editors with WikiP's best interest at heart. I also know that some of what I have written is likely to cause offense and I apologize for that. I do not object to all of the changes made so, again, please get wider input and we will go from there. MarnetteD|Talk 12:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
While I concur with CSD that serialisation with the link Serial (literature) is the term that way to refer to these books the field in the infobox is fixed and there would need to be a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book to change it or to add a new field for publication dates of novels published in installments. MarnetteD|Talk 16:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Further reverts

MarnetteD, sorry but your recent reverts are ungenerous. I sought the advice of a the copy editor CorinneSD, see also [2] and thought that I had produced a perfectly reasonable compromise – and made matters clearer. I then proceeded initially just with Great Expectations. Further revisions were made, following further comments from CorinneSD, directly to me. As you seemed happy, I have continued to edit. In reverting you have again removed uncontroversial additions. Please start by restoring these.
I had no intention of upsetting you; that you are interested in improving the articles on Dickens' novels is excellent. However, the comment 'By the way novel is not a genre', with the revert, is totally wrong (please check this, as you seem unclear on what a genre is*). Furthermore what was there was 'Fiction (novel)', what is controversial about that? I thought that I gave you enough time, as you responded so swiftly the last time.
Also, as stated before, *"social criticism" is not a genre, and Dickens is not usually described as a realist. Can you provide reputable sources for these opinions. Re series/serial you should check [3]. A TV series isn't usually called a serial. See also Swallows and Amazons series. Can you also provide a source to support your contention that a serialized novel can be called a series? Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Ungenerous is completely deleting my post as you did with this edit. I hope that was only a mistake on your part. Next please take a moment to read {{WP:BRD]] - You were bold and made your edit - I reverted - then the discussion begins but it needs to conclude before proceeding further - and that includes deciding whether your "compromise" works. Next please read WP:CANVASS because this thread User talk:Rwood128#Series and serial bumps right up against the line, and for some editors, crosses it. I am AGFing that you were simply asking for CSD'd opinion regarding this but, since the only people who had taken part in this thread were you and CSD (and I have no idea how you assumed I was "happy" with things since I had not yet taken part in any discussion) and you then proceeded to revert the infoboxes before any other editors had responded is a bit dodgy. Novel, novella, short story etc are publishing formats not genres. Prose and poetry are genres. You may not consider Social criticism a genre but Social criticism#In literature and music, at the very least, explain why it is a major part of Dickens' output. What TV production are called - and you are incorrect that they aren't called serials since, in the UK, a large part of their progamming is in the serial format - has nothing to do with the world of book publishing. Next, I have not said that a serialised novel is a series so please don't put words in my mouth. Lastly, I have explained the options of how to proceed from this point so please feel free to take advantage of them. MarnetteD|Talk 14:26, 23 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)

Did you look at the link provided? The edit you made came almost half an hour after the one I made so it could not possibly have been an edit conflict. I also explained in simple terms why your "compromise" was jumping the gun as full discussion had not yet occurred. MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm slow so that it is quite possible that I was already editing at 12.25, but we'll never know. By the way I'm sorry about the question marks on the info box, but I thought that I'd previously added entries in these places. Re jumping the gun, sorry, but I falsely presumed that you were a fast responder.
Can you, please, supply solid evidence (or link) to support the claim that "series" in the template is meant also to include a serial format. Rwood128 (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I already provided a link to where you need to go to discuss the situation. MarnetteD|Talk 17:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The link, which you seem to be referring to, relates to serial not series -- see, for example, Novel series and Book series. You appear to be confusing these closely related words. See the earlier discussion, which you maybe missed. Rwood128 (talk) 17:57, 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)

I'm totally lost, this link explains nothing. Do you know the difference in meaning between the two words, that is the point? Serial literature is not Novel series or Book series.
But we are going in circles. My impression is that you either haven't read or don't understand what has already been said above. But, perhaps, it's simply that my brain is addled. Rwood128 (talk) 18:26, 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 have also posted, again more tha once, where you should go to get input from other editors. It would be a great idea to do that now. MarnetteD|Talk 18:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

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)

What link do you think you provided me? There wasn't one to the CSD's talk page until I linked to it above. I am not being hostile and it is inappropriate for you to claim that I am. MarnetteD|Talk 16:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, tone is sometimes difficult to read in this type of medium. And then there's ambiguity, and lack of clarity -- I meant my Talk page. Rwood128 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Again you never provided me a link to that discussion. I found it on my own. MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
See first line 'Further reverts'. Rwood128 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining that. I missed that so my apologies FYI those where you use the full URL are harder to see since they only show as a number. The one I used later User talk:Rwood128#Series and serial stand out more, The difference is in using [[]] double brackets instead of [] singles. Now, I hasten to add, there is nothing wrong with creating the link the way you did I'm just giving you an alternative to be aware of. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 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)

(edit conflict)CSD you are completely misconstruing what I have written and I cannot fathom why that is. First, if you read closely the first sentence in my post I explained that the command R used did not ping me. How could I post to a conversation that I did not know about? The first time I encountered this discussion was two days later when R began reverting the infoboxes. At that point I discovered that the only discussion had been between the two of you and that is no basis for consensus, especially since it was a continuation of the one on R's talk page. Next, it was wrong of you to assume anything about my thoughts since I had not had a chance to respond. Next, there is no sentence in my post (or my edit summaries) stating that I prefer the use of the term "series" in the article and I find it hard to understand why you think that I did. For heavens sake, what part of "... I concur with CSD that serialisation with the link Serial (literature) is the term that way to refer to these books" indicates that I prefer the term series. Jeepers I wrote that I concurred with your assessment. The problem is (as you indicate) that there is no a field for serialisation in the infobox so that needs to be discussed at the talk page for that template. Next, note that I said "young people", not "children" as well. Why would you suggest otherwise? Lastly, I have seen hostile talk page conversations, this is not one of them and it is improper of you to suggest it is. So much of your post claims that I said or write things that I categorically did not say and I am completely flummoxed as to why that is. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have struck the term young people as what I wrote was "young readers" I still did not use the term "children" MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 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)

As I said it did not ping me. Since a post has to be signed for a ping to work I suspect this is the reason why. MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
One further item. I wrote "I would suggest either a broader discussion at the Wikiproject Novel talk page or a WP:RFC also at the novel project to gain wider input. Whatever is decided there will be fine with me" - this indicates a desire to gain more input to achieve a broader consensus. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


In my opinion the discussion should now be brought to a conclusion, that is unless editor MarnetteD|Talk can provide evidence:
  • (1) That a series can also refer to serialized novels and not just to a sequence of novels;
  • (2) That Great Expectations is an example of realistic fiction. (Why not compromise and simply call it fiction?)
MarnetteD|Talk's view has received no support (see also Our Mutual Friend Talk [4]), and he ignores my request for reputable sources to support his actions. Please MarnetteD settle this matter once and for all, either by agreeing that you are wrong, or proving with evidence that I'm am wrong. I have no problem with being wrong.
I don't see why this cannot be settled here, rather than prolonging matters, and believe that, technically speaking, I now have the right to revert. I have posted something on the Project page already [5]. But you seem confused MarnetteD – I don't want the template changed (the word series changed on it).
Anyhow I will allow editor MarnetteD ample time, to either garner support, or provide real evidence for his view. Rwood128 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
None of these pings worked because you have not formatted then properly. Technically speaking you have not gained a WP:CONSENSUS so you should not be reverting. The way to gain that consensus is to get input from more than three editors. Why you do not pursue that avenue is beyond me. Other editors may well agree with you and as I said (why am I constantly having to repeat myself?) I will go with whatever the larger discussion decides. Since only three people have commented, and there was canvassing on your talk page prior to the discussion here, you can claim support one way or the other. Next, I have never claimed that GE is realistic fiction so feel free to change it to whatever you wish. Next, I do not want the series field of the to be changed either. I have suggested that a new field for serialised novels be added. Why you chose not to understand that is also a mystery. The discussion at OMF shows that "social criticism" is a literary genre so there is no "I'm right and you are wrong" to deal with. To close, I have provided links to policy and alternatives to dealing with the situation time and again. Whether they have been understood is hard to determine. MarnetteD|Talk 12:05, 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)

Asking for an editors opinion on your talk page and then having them join the discussion on another page IS canvassing. Consensus is not a vote but I have no idea whether you can understand that. No, I did not ignore the final conclusion of the other editor at OMF and I am sick to death of you misinterpreting what I have written. Considering your inability to comprehend what I say, your inability to properly use the ping system when attempting to contact me and this nonsense I have concerns about WP:COMPETENCE. Since my time is being wasted I am done with you. Do what you want with the infoboxes. Enjoy your "win" may it sustain you throughout the rest of the week. MarnetteD|Talk 14:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no victory, as a consensus doesn't appear to have been established, and the discussion is still open on another page. I don't really know why I have wasted so much time here, but your attitude contributed. Actually I've learned a lot from this exchange.

Rwood128 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just done a very thorough survey of novels that were serialized and found that the space "series" (on the template) is never used, unless the novel was one of a sequence of novels, which was rare (i.e. Jules Verne, In Search of the Castaways). Serialization details are often omitted, but where they are given it is under "Publication date" (Alexander Dumas Three Musketeers). Rwood128 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dickens said it was his best work? to date, or after OMF? Not David Copperfield?

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)

I modified the end sentence in the lead, finding no source to support the statement. If someone does find such a source, please make clear how Dickens compared this novel to the others he wrote. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of brackets in citations?

Why are some citations enclosed in brackets? I don't know how to correct this. Rwood128 (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Apparently those aren't supposed to be inside the ref tags. As shown in Template:Harvard citation (aka harvsp), there are other formats available, such as Template:Harvard citation no brackets (harvnb) and Template:Harvp (bracket only around the year). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to fix the error but failed, as I don't understand the system. Can someone (maybe User:Rotideypoc41352) fix this? Rwood128 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe this is an error. The references that show inside parentheses link to the full citation in General Sources (a section that appears before the References in this article) by clicking on the blue text in the citation. Some find this a handy system when one source is cited often in the article, noting different pages or chapters in that source. If the parentheses really bother you in the Reference list, change all mentions of harv, or in this article harvsp, to harvnb (Harvard no brackets) in the Edit text. In the article's Reference list, a period will appear at the end of the citation, and no parentheses around it. This article uses harvsp for those references. Two were changed to harvnb by some editor (perhaps Clarityfiend or Rwood128 ) and those two do not have parentheses. This article should use one method consistently, so the first two should be changed back to harvsp, or all of them changed to harvnb. You will see harv or its variants inside double curly brackets used in this inline referencing format. It is pretty simple to search for harv then make the desired change in the Edit text for every reference.
An alternative is to redo all those citations using the rp| system (see Template:Rp), where the full citation is used once, and successive links to pages in that article or book are marked using ref name=GoodBook / (or whatever is the ref name) followed by rp|page number(s) between double curly brackets. Then the source name appears once in the Reference list, with the letters a, b, c, etc. for each specific citation, and the page number or chapter number shows in the text of the article next to the number of the reference. Mainly, the article should rely on one referencing system consistently. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Prairieplant thanks for taking the time. I'm guilty of creating the inconsistency and will fix things. This is a small matter in reality but the brackets aren't needed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 Not guilty, you took the time to learn one of the many ways of doing in line citations, which is admirable. I see on my better screen that no periods show up, nor is the year in parentheses with harvnb, as well as no parentheses around the whole citation. It was good of you to finish the work you started, getting the desired effect. It took me a while to figure out the Harvard reference system, just in reading an article, that the links are not to an article but to a full citation in the article. Fancy stuff, I think. If I find an article with many cites to the same author, I will use the Rp system, as I find that simpler, the page number right there in the text and a shorter reference list, making clear how often one source is cited. But other editors are not as fond of it as I am. Only from Wikipedia have I learned so many ways to do References properly. Where I live, today is Thanksgiving, so I wish you a happy one. --Prairieplant (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to thank Rwood128 and folks here for fixing up the citations. I translated the themes subsections from the French Wikipedia article (attribution on this talk page), which uses harvsp. I'll stay consistent and use harvnb from now on. Thanks to everyone who worked to fix this. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:04, 27 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)

Imperialism

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)

User:Rotideypoc41352 I've just realised that this is a very recent translation. I suspect that the problem is just as likely already in the original French? In view of all your industry I apolpgise for my somewhat abrasive tone; I had thought that this was something from earlier! Rwood128 (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Rwood128: no worries! In light of your comments, I've edited the section using the cited source as a guide. Please feel free to ping me when any translations need work. Thanks for communicating and helping out! Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Rotideypoc41352, I'm glad to help. I went back to this section, to try and fix it but gave up again. The problem is in the original and the inability of the French editor to clearly express him or her self. Amongst other things, in paraphrasing Said this editor leaves out essential information and assumes a knowledge of post-colonial literary theory. Rwood128 (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to make it read more logically, but without having access to Said! Rwood128 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I used the source cited at the end of the section: "Great Expectations and realism". Approaching literature: Reading Great Expectations. The Open University. 4 July 2013. Retrieved 11 December 2015. If you click "Reveal discussion", the second paragraph corresponds with the second sentence tagged {{vague}}. What is the best way to summarize this? Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 19:50, 12 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)

Even to me, who knows a little about postcolonial theory, the meaning isn't clear. What for example has Pip's "acceptance of Magwitch as surrogate father" to do with "the imperial process"? Furthermore, what is the Imperial process, in nonacademic language – the word "process", for a start, is too abstract. The original context has been lost in the transfer of ideas into the article. It seems like there are problems with the French article you are translating. Rwood128 (talk) 13:48, 13 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)

Many thanks for your comments. I'll try and deal with the sentences that I labelled "vague" and generally help your project as best I can. Rwood128 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The citations don't always seem to directly support the content. I have tried to fix things without going directly to Said (that is visiting the library!). Rwood128 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Conciseness section

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)

A further thought: Isn't conciseness is an unsatisfactory title for this section! It appears to deal with plot structure. Rwood128 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Done, for the conciseness section. Feel free to merge the Style subsections; I may do so after I've finished translating. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rotideypoc41352. Rwood128 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Overall organization

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)

Conquest of conscience – would this section flow better without the sub-headimgs? Rwood128 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Pip's pilgrimage These sentences don't make sense and are ungrammatical: "The theme of the moral regeneration thus emerges opposite the false values stated previously. Dickens, however, takes care to show that a genuine sense of reality is decreed but won." The first sentence of the next paragraph also needs clarifying: "Hillis-Miller shows that this return to origins implies their transformation into their opposites". Rwood128 (talk) 01:01, 16 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)

Prairieplant many thanks for this, but the "Silver fork" section and other content was added by Rotideypoc41352, and my focus has been on copy editing. I agree, however, that the article is moving in the right direction, though there are serious problems with the organization of the "Theme" section.
Re "the tiny thing that annoys you", I presume this is "11.3: Pip's expectations". This situation has been created by my recent editing and certainly needs to be fixed. Rwood128 (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Rwood128 Sections in transition, no problem. I meant if one looks at the table of contents to find section x, then subsection x.1, and no x.2 or more. To me, that is all one section that should have one title. Alternatively, if there is more material, then make a true x.2 section. At this moment, Symbolism and London as prison is the extreme example -- two headings over one paragraph. Perhaps choose symbolism as the title and work London as prison into the paragraph. That link from Rotideypoc41352 on the organization for an article about a novel is handy, I never knew that existed. Plus, it supports my notion to move Plot summary and characters to the start of the article -- liking something that I already agree with :-) Sorry if I mixed up who did which work; the combination is working well. I would be curious on the languages into which this novel was translated. The French one seemed important from using the French article to enrich this one, just a thought. --Prairieplant (talk) 09:30, 17 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)

Dickens' views on social and economic progress

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)

I've now done some work on the "topic sentence" part of the above. Rwood128 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just tried re-writing this section. but had to give up! Firstly it is in the wrong place; that is it should follow the reference to the greasy notes in the "wealth" section. Secondly it is often incoherent, as with these sentences "In fact, Household Words championed international free trade: they compared the constant flow of money to that of money in an issue published 17 May 1856.[94] In the 1850s, Dickens still believed in genuine wealth, which Trotter compares to fresh banknotes, crisp to the touch, pure and odorless.[94]"

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)

I eventually made more sense of this section by going back to the original French version.

Symbolism

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)

Historical novel

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)

There is a citation that categorizes the novel as Historical, Allingham at http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/ge/pva101.html, clearly the source. I wonder if the French text is a translation from that English language source. I think that generally A Tale of Two Cities and Barnaby Rudge are considered as historical novels, and the rest are set sometime before the year of publication, but not so long before as those two. The novel gives exact historical clues, making clear it is set decades before its writing and publication. Key aspects of the plot depend on the story being in the time when those who left Australia, when sent there as prisoners, were hanged if caught back in England. That law was history by the time the novel was written. Making the reference to Allingham clear, plus a nod to the Wikipedia article's definition of 50 years before publication, while the bulk of the action is set 30 to 40 years before the 1861 publication. It is not a novel set in the years it was published, to be sure. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
@Prairieplant: from what I've seen, the French text does seem to be translations of English language web sources. So Allingham as well as the Open University course cited at the end of the Imperialism subsection. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

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)

Not sure who wrote the above remarks. This article has been substantially altered by including English translation of the French Wikipedia article on this novel, during 2015. Several worked on the article once the translated text was added, both improving the translations and the organization, while making the reference style consistent. We hope we have eliminated any direct copies from Spark Notes text. There is no longer a section with the title Themes and Analysis in this article. I hope anyone reviewing the article to raise its class is aware of the changes. We did find a few lines in the French translations to be taken from sources, but we made sure the source was cited, and/or the text was altered to original writing by the editors rather than plagiarized. Is anyone reviewing this for higher than C class? --Prairieplant (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I just clicked on the link above, and it brings me back right here. That was a surprise. So I cannot comment on those past comments, nor do know what year they were posted. --Prairieplant (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Plot summary discussion

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)

One editor is not pleased, and I have asked that editor to propose changes here on the talk page first and stay collegial. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
You vandalised the article by reverting the improvements which were performed over a long period of time with careful edit summaries. . I don't intend to make improvements in a sandbox. I have explained what was wrong with the summary (it was unsourced and inaccurate). Please reply in the section below where I explain my edits. Mathsci (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Mathsci Here is the 1st quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations
"Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself. For example, primary source citations are appropriate when including notable quotes from the work, citing the act/chapter/page/verse/etc of the quote within the work." The Plot summary does NOT need sources other than the primary source, that is, the novel.
2nd quote from the lead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary
" The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens and to fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it. The summary must be concise because Wikipedia's coverage of works of fiction should be about more than just the plot. Plot summaries that are too long and too detailed can be hard to read and are as unhelpful as those that are too short. Finding the right balance requires careful editorial discretion and discussion."
Mathsci You are using the terms "vandalized, hammer home, entirely incorrect" in your posts to me, yet consider yourself to be bullied. Please tone down the words, and introduce collegiality to this discussion.
The quotes above from WP:PLOTSUM are the basis for my comments about length, which is my primary concern. Your changes added length, but in my view did not aid a reader in following the plot because of too many added details, none of which seemed crucial to the plot in my view -- even Startop. There are many ways to write a good, concise summary of this novel; no phrase from some other source is essential, in my view, and should not be placed here without an inline citation. I appreciate your interest in Great Expectations. I hope you understand that my concerns are length and clarity, to say it once more, and I hope you can respond to those concerns. My changes were not vandalism, an inappropriate term here, just because you disagreed with my view. What you have put back in place so often is not a good summary, in my view. You may find those words harsh, but I mean to say it simply, to explain why reverting was the simplest response to your long string of changes. I see that you have cut back a little from 1,500 words, and added a lot of inline citations to someone else's summary. As you are "stupefied" to learn that other editors write the Plot summary from the original source, you might be interested in this discussion on the plot summary of another novel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Far_Side_of_the_World. I believe it is not good form to delete comments posted to your talk page, better to move them to the Talk page that is most appropriate. Happy New Year to you! --Prairieplant (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Prairieplant, the relevant guidelines for this situation are WP:DONTREVERT, WP:BRD and WP:NOVELPLOT. Fwiw, the summary was at about 950 words before Mathsci's edits (which I thought were fine); it's now at 1234 - which can probably be reduced somewhat with some prose tightening. Victoria (tk) 16:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec) My summary has been shortened by another editor and I am quite happy with what she or he has done. In fact they removed some details that predated my edits.
But I would point out first of all that this is a classic. In the case of a book which is not a classic, there are unlikely to be summaries already published. When that is the case, the guidelines apply; and what you have said is correct. However, in the case of classics like the early seventeenth century play King Lear, which have subtleties, or indeed this work, amateur summaries are unreliable. That was the case here. Even now readers trying to work out where theatre fits into the plot will have problems: they will, however, know where to look for a more detailed summary—without having to read the book—because of the in-line links. For the plot of the eighteenth century opera Giulio Cesare, a detailed summary of the plot has been supplied by Winton Dean in his encyclopedic book; that is what I would use when updating that article—I would not dream of taking the "Red Riding Hood" example as a guide. So where summaries exist (and there is no shortage of them for classics), we would normally use those. In this case, the plot is not only concerned with actions but with exchanges between characters, with facts that are gradually disclosed, etc. The Far Side of the World is not a nineteenth century classic, it is a recent book. I would not expect to find any reasonable published summary of it. Pride and Prejudice, The Moonstone, Jane Eyre and Middlemarch are nineteenth century classics. A summary derived from a reliable secondary source is far more useful as an educational aid, which is after all one of the purposes of wikipedia. I don't think length is an issue. Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2017 (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)

My additions are a paraphrase of what Paul Davis wrote, following the usual rules for articles on wikipedia. I agree that some work has still to be done in making it less disjointed. The role of Biddy as Pip's first teacher has been omitted; Pip arrives on the wedding day of Joe and Biddy. After Miss Havisham sets fire to herself, Herbert Pocket tends Pips wounds and gives Pip more information about Magwitch, from which Pip realises Estella is Magwitch's daughter. Does the comic character Uncle Pumblechook need to be mentioned? Orlick ends up in prison for attacking him. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Not everything needs to be included, and Pumblechook is mentioned in the list of characters. Can you please confirm that the plot summary does not contain any phrases from the source? Sorry to be so pernickety. Rwood128 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
When I say that I paraphrase, that is what I mean. It means preserving the meaning, but changing the wording or sentence structure, using synonyms. "My additions are a paraphrase of what Paul Davis wrote, following the usual rules for articles on wikipedia," was unambiguous. I hope that answers your question fully. Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I realise that my comment was a little rude (blunt). Rwood128 (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Statement concerning improvements using a WP:RS

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)

I am an experienced editor, as well. Plot summary does not need to be sourced, and summaries are in general the writing of Wikipedia editors. Please keep this discussion collegial. The point I raise is the length, making it harder to follow the general plot. My name is Prairieplant. --Prairieplant (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Plot summary does indeed need to be sourced. I have made plot summaries of plays by Racine which paraphrased what could be found in books/commentaries. I would not dream of creating those summaries myself. That is not how wikipedia is written. Besides I do not see how a long book of 59 chapters or instalments could be summarised in a satisfactory way by wikipedians. If you are claiming that wikipedia does not use published sources but instead relies on the interpretation of wikipedians, you would find that your claims would not be upheld by administrators or arbitrators. You seem to be bullying me because I have used sources other than the primary source (i.e. the book itself). But you have avoided discussing any of the changes I have made. Instead you have reverted sourced changes (as indicated in my careful edit summaries) and insisted that we do not use sources. I'm afraid that seems to be vandalism/bullying. Your statements about sourcing are clearly quite wrong in a very serious way. Mathsci (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
When I removed a comment of yours from my talk page and asked you to post here, it meant exactly what I wrote. But again can I hammer home to you that your assertion that we do not edit wikipedia using sources is entirely incorrect? On wikipedia we find the sources and we summarise them. That applies everywhere. Why are you edit warring here and on my user talk page? Mathsci (talk) 12:29, 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)

Mathsci, to close this off, this discussion of the Plot summary not being sourced, my list of Wikipedia guidance for plot summaries says that the Plot summary is one part of the article that can rely on the primary source, the novel, rather than on secondary sources. MOS:PLOT, WP:PLOTSUM which is part of MOS:WAF (Writing about fiction on Wikipedia) are the guidance I have used, along with helpful comments from other editors also working on articles about novels. That advice seeks in general to have concise plot summaries (less than 800 words in some guidance) as well as accurate summaries. Other aspects of the plot that do not make it into the summary are expected to be mentioned in the other, sourced parts of the article, such as when themes and narrative voice and similar topics are discussed. That is how this article is now, I think. I hope we can be on good terms and and patiently discuss a point from our respective viewpoints from editing on Wikipedia. I hope you are soon back home and in good health. --Prairieplant (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2018 (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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Checked both rescued references. --Prairieplant (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Magwitch's return

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)

I've a feeling that this has been discussed somewhere, so you should be able to find an answer to your questions. You might be interested in the novel Jack Maggs (1997) by Australian novelist Peter Carey. Rwood128 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Please read Great Expectations#Historical novel to learn why the novel is set when it is. Prior to 1835 it was the death penalty for anyone escaping the penal colony to return to England. I do not know what you mean by "an official ship". Merchant ships of all nations sailed the oceans in the 19th century, stopping in British and British colonial ports as long as the two nations were not at war. He could pay his passage on one for the long journey back to England. It was not "anyone" who recognized him in England and alerted the authorities, it was the man who made him take the burden of guilt, Compeyson, who recognized him. Compeyson was rightly afraid of Magwitch after the encounter on the moors when Pip was a child. Compeyson had the mien of a higher class, and Magwitch had that of the lower class in class-conscious England, even when he wore better clothes and had experienced some success in his life. Plus the law was against him. This was a key aspect of the plot, how Magwitch entered Pip's life at all, and how Compeyson ruined Miss Havisham by promising to marry her but never showing up, and as one would expect in a novel by Dickens, those two men had a connection. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
There were cases of prisoners doing well and applying to return to the UK. And would Compeyson necessarily recognize Magwitch after he had been so long away?
'Mr Policeman/Mr Peel - this is Magwitch, a convict who has escaped from Australia.'
'My name is not Magwitch and this man is mistaken.'
'By the sound of your voice you are not from around London town are you?'
'I am from (another bit of the UK) - and I thought London accents strange when I came here.'
(Further development belongs on Archive of Our Own.)
Quite a few 'stories' could logically develop in other directions - or the passage of time makes the plot device seem less feasible than it did at the time: all the 'the USSR is beating the West' books written up to 1991.) 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:26, 19 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)

This IP corresponds to a public access library so more than one person may be involved, (Passer by) 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC) –––––ITS ONE PERSON, EVERY THURSDAY!Rwood128 (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Does this require the attention of an administrator? Rwood128 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Rwood128 What is written is not pertinent to the novel. "Archive of our own" is for fanfiction, not about the novel. The lines above are not dialogue from the novel (I just went to Project Gutenberg to search the text; the police and customs officers are not named). The person did not reply to my post, at least not that I can understand. Stopping the discussion seems appropriate. I can see why you want to delete that post, as it is irrelevant. What do we do to bring it to the attention of an administrator? --Prairieplant (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Prairieplant. I'll wait and see for now. Rwood128 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(Passer by) I know what I wrote on this IP and its predecessors - more than one person is/was involved. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
The point being that the discussion should be developed somewhere more relevant: noticing that there might be plo-tholes/implausibilities can be relevant to WP; plot-hole-sperlunking should be done elsewhere. (And the point that before photography it was difficult to identify people (especially after an extended period of time) has been made elsewhere.) 89.197.114.132 (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I still see no point in what this IP address is saying about the novel. Magwich is recognized by a man who would remember him, as Magwich tried to kill him off the hulks, and the man used Magwich sadly. If you have sources "elsewhere" with notable discussion of the point of recognition of Magwich by Compeyson, then put those sources forward here. --Prairieplant (talk) 10:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Date of the action

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)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Expectations/Archive_2&oldid=873641150"