Wikipedia:Peer review/The Picture of Dorian Gray/archive2

The Picture of Dorian Gray edit

I have very recently overhauled this article, as I feel it has the potential to become FA standard. Obviously, it is not at that standard yet, but I think there is enough information about the book for it to receive good treament from Wiki editors. I would like to request that the article be read to check its fluency and format. Moreover, if one could read it and ask critical questions of the subject matter, or question what one wants to know about any siginifcant work of literature, and relay their opinions, I think that would be quite helpful too. -Adasta- 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a rather quick look through the article, but at first glance it appears to be exellently researched and quite thourough. I do have several comments, however:

-Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I am of the personal opinion that the introduction section should read like an abstract. That is to say that it should be a summary of the information that is to follow, rather than providing new information. I like your current introduction, but I would suggest that you condense and combine the first two paragraphs and move some information to the main article.

Lead has been shortened. However, this means that the information that was there previously has been moved, and it not integrated into the article as well as it should be. I am going to work on this. -Adasta- 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My second comment concerns the analysis at the bottom of the article. I question whether this content should be in this article. On the one hand, an analysis of the themes is important in understanding the deeper meaning of any work of fiction. On the other hand, analysis is by nature POV. What you believe are important themes may not be important to other people; that is to say that everyone views a book differently. What I would suggest is that you move this material to a separate article, and include a paragraph or two describing the major points with a link to this new article.

This is fine (as you have noted!). -Adasta- 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment concerns the inclusion of the preface in the article. I would suggest that you move this section to Wikiquote and link there, rather than having the entire text in the article. I do not believe that it adds significantly to an understanding of the novel; rather, it is an insight into Wilde's mind.

For the moment, I think The Preface should stay in. I am not completey averse to it being removed, but I think it helps the article by showing the controversy that affected the novel upon its initital publication. I intend to write some more about the decadents, which would tie-in with the preface. -Adasta- 09:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I am not making these changes myself, but I am not a literary expert and it has been a long time since I read Dorian Grey, and I would not feel comfortable making major changes.

I hope that this is helpful to you. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a note on my talk page.

Take care,

Âme Errante 21:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through some Wikipedia guidelines, and found that analysis of novels is not only accepted, it is encouraged. However, the guideline states that articles should offer "offer comprehensive, summarised plots in conjunction with sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance within the article" (more info) - the key here is that it needs to be analysis that can be attributed to someone of note, not your own analysis. So the analysis is just fine, as long as you can find sources for it.

Âme Errante 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Wikipedia guidelines on formatting the introduction can be found here: WP:LEAD

Âme Errante 21:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say that I haven't read the article yet, but a few things leapt out at me after a few glances:

I might just be paranoid, but I'm not sure that the Penguin cover is the best from a copyright perspective. It's probably okay, and easily identifies the work, but the 1880s edition fills that role also, and I think it's a more interesting shot. This is a minor point. :)

Changed -Adasta- 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would personally not have the {{further}} tag for sections like Homoeroticism, but instead simply wikilink the terms when they occur in the text.~~

Changed-Adasta- 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to kind of agree about removing the Preface. You might at least give more discussion on its significance or perhaps integrating it better with the criticism that the Lippincot edition received. (This comment is subject on my part to a closer reading of the article.)

Have merged the sections, and think that now a greater overview is given.-Adasta- 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might be going against a Wikiproject's policy on this, but I'm not keen on separate sections for plot and characters. Your character descriptions seem succinct enough that you could integrate them into Plot as appositives.

I'm going to stick with the guidelines for NovelsWikiProject on this one.-Adasta- 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love Dorian, so I'm keen to read this, but the beer I just had precludes that. ;) My brief glances suggest I won't be disappointed. Have you considered submitting this for Good Article status?--Monocrat 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is good article status quite yet, because I know that there are a few things that I still need to add! -Adasta- 12:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion on that page.-Adasta- 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]