Talk:The Picture of Dorian Gray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] A Substanial Edit
I have made a large edit to this article, because I think I (with some help) can get it up to FA standard. An overview of my edits is as follows:
- Expanded the lead
- Added a character list, with a brief overview of each character
- Created a section about The Preface, because it is a significant part of the book
- Severely curtailed the section on the publication history, as the previous version was largely irrelevant. I still think more could be found out about the books history
- Created the Themes section. I have tried to offer as many citations as possible. I plan to expand this section in the future
- Removed the fodder from the previous article
I plan to build on this start, but are there any suggestions for what to add? -Adasta- 17:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a good start. FA's on literature are among the more difficult (we have only a handful on classic literature sadly). Other things to add would be criticisms (contemporary and later), and a literary history (not the same as publication history, but could be integrated). Couple questions - what happened to the "Film" section, was it just deleted? Or moved to another article? We need to move all the Film Project tags and film categories to somewhere.
- I added this to the Novels Wiki Project (just by adding the tag above). Not sure if this strictly qualifies as a novel, but the important thing is they have standards on how to bring literature articles up to FA, and resources to help. -- Stbalbach 01:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have a criticisms section in draft form, and am working to expand on that. I also hope to add to the Theme section. Could you expand upon the notion of a Literary History, and what you think that should entail?
-
- I have removed all of the film references; if someone wants to talk about a specific adapation, they will need to create a page for that. I will remove all film tags now. -Adasta- 11:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmm. re: films I'm not sure if they should go on a dab page, a "in popular culture" page, or a " xyz (film)" page. Re: literary history, I don't have any critical editions but you would typically find a literary history as the first piece in a scholarly edition, the intro, preface, etc.. the "publication history" section is partly that now, but that's probably not a good name for that section, too limited in scope, it's more than just a publication history. -- Stbalbach 12:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It appears the films are already listed in List of cultural references in The Picture of Dorian Gray, so problem solved. --Stbalbach 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] On the Preface
I've cleaned up the formatting of the text of the Preface and have added some historical information noting the influence of Wilde's contemporaneous exposure to Daoism over the Preface. I'm not sure if this runs afoul of the "no original research" dictum of Wikipedia, but if it does, blame the Inaction of Wilde's scholars (of whom I have been among the most inactive) and revert at your leisure.
I would submit that the Preface is significant enough in and of itself to merit its own entry. As I myself am a partial adherent to that "great creed of Inaction," I'll leave the task, if worthy, to more industrious angels than myself.
Tatwell 20:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dorian Gray in popular culture
The films, TV, comic books, etc.. all need to be listed in one article. It looks like a bunch of that material was just deleted outright, with a film-only new article created, and the TV stuff kept in this article - a confused mess. See Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture for how this is done. -- Stbalbach 18:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I really don't think that that article has any need to exist. Those horrendous lists can easily be converted to good prose if someone would spend the time to do so. I don't think that your moving of relevent content to a page which is an incomplete list of things loosely related to The Picture of Dorian Gray benefits the main article. My edit with regards to Urashima Taro is not only a perfectly acceptable example of allusion within the novel, but also adheres to the templates found at the Wikinovels project. I think that the use of the Dante and his Divine Comedy in popular culture as an example is not wildly compelling as it is also merely a list, and the main article itself (Divine Comedy) is not a featured article.
-
- I think we should be looking at articles like The Giver or The Illuminatus! Trilogy as examples of what this article should become. I would like to avoid an edit war, as I think it is entirely possible to incorporate that list into the main article without comprimising the article's quality. Surely that would meet both of our desires? -Adasta- 16:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, the popular list could be better formated, I didn't take the time to do so. The problem is there are so many references in popular culture, my guess is 100s if not many 1000s. Of course we can always have notable versions in this article, but the editor needs to justify why they are notable and why they stand above the crowd, as you say, in prose format - it's better to just have an open list anyone can edit with no worry about relevance, notability or quality because it will eventually get very long. Anyway, feel free to turn the notable adaptations into prose, that would be a great addition. -- Stbalbach 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
The first episode of Series 4 of Blakes Seven has a reworking of the Dorian Grey story (the character in question being called... Dorian). Jackiespeel 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest one paragraph here and a link to References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture, where the rest of the material can go? - Jmabel | Talk 07:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is good
I have passed this article for good article status. Congratulations to everyone who's worked on it. I remember seeing this a few months back and it was a complete mess, so clearly a lot has been done in a short space of time. Bravo!
Now, assuming the aim is to get this through to FA status, a lot more needs to be done.
- Ever since User:Tony1 arrived on Wikipedia, the standard of prose required for FA has soared. This sort of thing is right up his street; unless you're prepared, he will take you apart - and quite rightly too. He's written a guide for FA candidates as regards prose standards. It is mandatory reading. Do the accompanying exercises as well.
- Peer review, peer review, peer review. Essential for correcting the article's mistakes.
- See WP:WIAFA, and the links at the bottom.
- More specifically, the first paragraph of the "Plot summary" is too floridly phrased. The rest of the prose is fine for GA, but that one paragraph is just a little too unencyclopedic. Rephrase.
- The whole "Aestheticism" bit in the "Themes" needs to be expanded. The phrase "fin de siecle" (with the accents) must be included, preferably several times.
- There was some positive reception to the book at the time. Louis Stevenson thought it was first-rate. That should be included.
- Some more on modern criticism is essential.
- All the popular culture + film references are fine now, but I really don't think that any more are necessary.
- The two paragraphs following the heading "Literary significance" don't seem to me to have much to do with literary significance. They need to go somewhere else and filled in for.
I plan on staying around to help, so if any more nasties come to mind I'll point them out. Once again, congrats on all the hard work so far. It's got me interested, and I would love to see it get to FA. Good luck! Best, Moreschi 13:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Linking dates
There was a concerted effort a few months back, using bots, to de-link excessive date linking in articles across Wikipedia. According to the manual of style on dates it says:
- There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article.
Just because there is a date in an article doesn't mean it should be linked. Only when there is a good reason to do so, when clicking on the date link will lead to a better understanding. -- Stbalbach 23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought that bare month and day names like wednesday and October should not be linked. But 21 October should since that way it will, according to one's date preferences, either show 21 October or October 21. Garion96 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see. -- Stbalbach 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ages of the characters
At the outset, the ages of the characters are:
Dorian, 20 Lord Henry, 30 Sybil, 17 James, 16
We are also told that Basil is a 'young man.'
'18 years later' we find Dorian, 38; Lord Henry, 48; and James, 44. Basil is murdered and Sybil committed suicide at 17.
The point is, some people want to make the homosexual relationship 'pederasty.' While there is a degree of older man/younger man influence, it is clear by Wilde's references to Henry and Basil also as 'young men' that the idea was more of experience/rookie; it was still on an adult theme (Dorian being 20 years old at the start).
→ R Young {yakłtalk} 07:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "deference of aging"
"deference of aging"? Who is deferring to whom? Perhaps "deferral"? Or "postponement"? - Jmabel | Talk 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did actually intend to use the word "deferral", but I think I used "deference" by mistake. Well spotted; I will amend it now. -Adasta- 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)