Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Peer review/A Tale of Two Cities

A Tale of Two Cities

I have been working consistently on this article, and I believe I have improved it a lot, but I'm sure it has much further to go. I'm aiming for GA status, which would be one step up from where it is now, if I understand the system.

One problem I have as an author is dividing interpretation from fact. I often feel that facts about literary works only make sense in the context of interpretations. (I'm one who believes that some interpretations of a work are invalid, even though there are probably infinitely many valid ones, and also that some are better than others — I can't really defend this, of course, it's just my belief.) But I nonetheless expect I need to do a better job of keeping my own readings out of the article (even though they are supported by citations of prominent scholars). In particular, I'm afraid I may need to take out the "doppelganger" point about Carton and Darnay, which to me is really the key to the novel, so I'd hate not to be able to find some way to reference it - opinions welcomed).

The version of the article I inherited very much needed to Omit Needless Words, and also never used a ten-cent word when a twenty-five-cent word would do worse. So I'm sure there's much pruning and rephrasing that remains to be done.

The last issue is probably just one that Wikipedia will have to live with, which is that since this is the novel of Dickens's most commonly taught in high schools (in the United States, at least) it is subject to vandalism. And more interestingly, since the audience for this article is younger than that for many of the articles on Dickens's other novels, should it aim at more of a high school reading level?

Finally, are there whole sections I should remove or should add?

Thank you for your time.

DiderotWasRight (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Yllosubmarine

• First of all, more references and citations are a must. Quotes from the novel must be cited to a specific page number. The entire "Analysis" section contains only one citation, which runs the risk of others suspecting WP:OR. The "Themes" section has entire, chunky paragraphs without citations. As for the references, there must be more than six books to pull from? Just a quick search of the MLA database shows dozens of results of scholarly sources.
• The citation formatting is confusing; TOTC, I'm guessing, is the edition that is listed in "Bibliography"; this should be cited with "Dickens" to match the other surname refs. Also, what is the difference between "TOTC II.6" and "TOTC, Book 2, Chapter 8"? Is there a difference? In order to satisfy WP:CITE, specific page numbers should be used instead.
• I would remove "Relation to Dickens's personal life" and incorporate some of the more pertinent information into a "Background" section. The lead section touches upon the timeline and what makes this a historical novel, but it's not fully explained in the article. This info should be before the plot summary to better put things into context.
• What about a literary style section? Genre? How does this book define the historical fiction genre? What about Dickens' wordiness? What have critics said about these facets?
• The plot summary should definitely be parred down. I understand there's a ton to write about as far as plot details, but twenty separate paragraphs is overkill.
• If you're looking for more pics, I suggest using one of Dickens or even something about the French Revolution. There are tons available at the Commons.
• The opening – "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." – and closing – "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known." – of the book are among the most famous lines in English literature: true, but it has a citation tag. Unless it can be qualified, it really serves no purpose, especially not solely in the lead.
• Speaking of the lead, please keep WP:LEAD in mind. It states that the intro section should be treated as a summary of the entire article. Several tidbits, such as the number of chapters and its publication history, are not mentioned in the article itself. Perhaps create a "Publication history" section?
• There's nothing about the novel's legacy, which I think is a shame. As you mentioned above, this novel is taught at the high school level and is highly respected. What place does it have in English literature?
• The "Adaptations" section should be in prose, not list format. This would give you an opportunity to plump up the novel's importance level with something along the lines of "A Tale of Two Cities has been adapted for the film and stage numerous times..."

This was only a quick review, but I hope it helps point you in the right direction. The most important thing to keep in mind is sourcing, sourcing, sourcing. I would suggest finding more scholarly sources, ensuring that there is at least one ref in every paragraph (except for the plot section, which is typically self evident; aside from direct quotations, of course). The prose seems wordy, but you already knew that; work on cutting the plot section down and developing more sections that not only help readers understand the historical/publishing context but also what this book's legacy has to offer. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; this is very useful. When citing a work that exists in many editions (such as Hamlet), authors often refer to "Act x Scene y" rather than to a page number. Since Tale also exists in many editions, is there a way I can cite page numbers but also give Book and Chapter for use with other editions? DiderotWasRight (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct quotes from Shakespeare's plays are typically referred to by act, scene and line numbers; in fact, I see a few cited that way over at Hamlet. I haven't read Dickens in a while, but it's strictly prose, yes? :) The key is that referencing should be as specific as possible for our purposes. This requires page numbers leading to your specific text in the Bibliography (WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). I personally do not see much of a reason for listing the book or chapter with the page number, since one seemingly denotes the other, but you could play with the formatting to see what makes the most sense. I can't find anything that says it isn't allowed. María (habla conmigo) 02:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to give page numbers for every quote, but I would like to also include book and chapter numbers as well (Tale is in three "books," so a quotation might be from Book 2, Chapter 4). This would be so that a student who has the Dover edition of the text and wants to find a quote the Wikipedia article references will be able to find it at least roughly, even though I cite the Penguin edition. The book and chapter numbers are universal across all editions of the text; the page numbers are not. DiderotWasRight (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• good work
• I would like to see more citations on the literary criticism
• Add a section on influence on others 16:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)