Talk:George Eliot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Eliot article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

I have deleted the website advertisement that this Talk page seems to have been created in order to make room for. :-( Webmaster M. Perry (see History), if you really are the creator of the page, please note that every time you go to create a page, this polite plea is displayed: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:Policy)" (emphasis mine). Bishonen 00:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Criminally small article 2 Suggested improvements to Literary Assessment section 3 Links in 'Other works' section 4 Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels 5 The entire "assessment" section is a big POV

[edit] Criminally small article

I followed you here, Bishonen, and I was similarly aghast at what I found. George Eliot is fully as important a novelist, as I know you know, as Jane Austen, Henry Fielding, or William Makepeace Thackery, and such an entry as has been here is a crime. I think this ought to be a Collaboration of the Week. There should be a discussion of her throughout her life, with each novel's context set a bit, including the ones people don't read so much. Wow. Well, I've taken a first stab, but that's all it is. I might well want to summon some of my print sources to see if we can do better. (I know that full discussions of individual novels should go in those articles, but this woman's life is very interesting, complex, and sad.) Geogre 13:51, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• (Hey, if you think that's a crime, take a look at Joseph Heller). That's great, Geogre, thanks very much, excellent expansion. Actually I came here to re-add the stub boilerplate that Vina had removed, because I don't think being a "stub" is all a matter of being shorter than a certain number of words. But now I won't, of course. After Geogre's edits George Eliot obviously isn't a stub in any sense any more, but before that, I think it was still a stub in the sense that it covered the subject so horribly inadequately in relation to the fame, historical importance and present-day popularity of the novelist. I don't mean to say that you were wrong to remove the tag, Vina, especially since I can't find any real Wikipedia policy, or even discussion, about what constitutes a stub. Many people do seem to assume that all articles of less than whatever number of words are by definition stubs, and articles over that length aren't, but some speak of need for expansion as being the stub criterion. I like the second criterion, but that's me. Btw, for an argument that a very short article can be adequate, and not a stub, if it's about an insignificant subject, please see Talk:William Baylebridge, where I argue that William Baylebridge, rescued from Cleanup, is no stub even though it's so short. Bishonen 16:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, Bishonen, I use "stub" the same way: it's not a question of length, but of adequacy. I'd say that this George Eliot is still right on the border of a stub, because there is just so much that not just could be written about her but sort of must be written about her. She's one of the most significant British novelists of the 19th century, breaks ground in all directions, has a fascinating biography, and remains popular to this day. Silas Marner, alone, has been turned to film about six or seven times, including recently by Steve Martin I'm told. Anyway, you and I are literary types, so we're probably more stung by brevity with literary figures than others are. I really do want to gather up my print sources and attempt justice by Mary Ann Evans.
Geogre 17:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I dunno if it's part of the needed additions (or part of my pathology, see below), but i notice no suggestion of hymn-writing! I notice this by noticing she is probably the source of the expression probably the source of the expression "joined the choir invisible".
  --Jerzy•t 23:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  

[edit] Suggested improvements to Literary Assessment section

I think the Literary Assessment section could be improved by removing some of the more evaluative statements. Adjectives abound in this section, e.g. 'masterful, famous, sophisticated, politically astute'. These don't really tell the reader anything concrete about George Eliot's work. A better, more objective article would be built around an outline of main themes, techniques etc. (e.g. social realism), using examples from the novels and quotations from contemporary reception. If there is no defence of the current article within the next two weeks I will start amending. Caitriona, 14.3.2006.

The assessment of Romola needs reviewing. Some critics reckon it to be her best and most mature work. DFH 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made the language about Romola neutral for now, which I hope is an improvement. I believe that a high assessment of the novel is justified but should only be introduced with citations of reliable sources (which a willing editor will readily find). Wareh 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links in 'Other works' section

The wikilinks that are not redlinks require editing or deleting. They go to pages that are not works by George Eliot. DFH 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange, after a quick search, I could not find these titles as works of George Eliot. Also, I deleted "Brother and Sister", as it is a chapter of "Mill on the Floss".cult-p

Tried a search in COPAC ? Not yet had time myself. DFH 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

COPAC does not list Arion, Stradivarius, A Minor Prophet, The Death of Moses. It does list Agatha, Brother Jacob, A College Breakfast Party and Armgart.cult-p 19:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I just tried Google for Stradivarius and found it in Collected Poems of George Eliot. DFH 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggest insert a Poetry subheading, and move individual poem titles accordingly. Let's remove all the links for poem titles. It's unlikely that we'd make a separate page for each. DFH 20:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Made a start. Please check each title, and move any that are not a poem back to the Other works sub-section. Thanks. DFH 21:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

The novels of George Eliot being among the most significant by English women novelists of the 19th century, they are surely deserving for inclusion in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. I have therefore created a new Category:George Eliot novels as a small step in this direction, and have tagged the page Talk:Romola for this WikiProject. DFH 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The entire "assessment" section is a big POV

Why is this section here at all? Wikipedia should cite assessments by notable outside authorities, not the opinion of its own editors. Uucp 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)