Talk:Middlemarch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:13, 12 March 2007

Novels B‑class Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mary Garth

I changed the line about Mary Garth's "publishing a volume of poetry" because the novel gives no indication that it is a book of poetry: "But when Mary wroet a little book for her boys, called Stories of Great Men, taken from Plutarch, and had it printed and published ..." (fifth paragraph of the Finale). My new version just says "published an historical volume for boys" and I encourage anyone else to improve upon the phrasing, but I think it's more accurate now.

Morrisey trivia

I added this. (God, I'm literate! :-)) SmokeyTheCat 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Dorothea

Citing some article second-rate journal seems like poor excuse to me for making the 'criticism' section notable. Judging by its lack of other citations its either a direct summary of the article, which doesn't seem encyclopedic, its using unsourced statements, or original claims. Without any arguement for in the next week I'll cut the section since it's unecyclopedic no matter how you slice it. Wilhelm Ritter 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 == Morrisey trivia ==
 I added this. (God, I'm literate! :-)) [[User:SmokeyTheCat|SmokeyTheCat]] 14:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
+==Criticism of Dorothea==
+Citing some article second-rate journal seems like poor excuse to me for making the 'criticism' section notable.  Judging by its lack of other citations its either a direct summary of the article, which doesn't seem encyclopedic, its using unsourced statements, or original claims.
+Without any arguement for in the next week I'll cut the section since it's unecyclopedic no matter how you slice it.
+[[User:Wilhelm Ritter|Wilhelm Ritter]] 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)