Jump to content

Talk:Through the Looking-Glass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleThrough the Looking-Glass is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 17, 2025.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 31, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
July 9, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article


Peer review

[edit]

Through the Looking-Glass

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I have listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC, and would like comments and suggestions for improvement. In particular I'd be glad of thoughts about the order of the various sections: should they be rejigged and if so, how? I'd also value comments on the length of the various sections: too long, too short, about right? Is the lead image the right one to pick? And any other comments interested editors may think helpful. Tim riley talk 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Commenting by request, having read the book a very long time ago.

a relative term, I feel: I have known and loved Through the Looking Glass since 1957. Tim riley talk 10:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the sections are good and their importance is clear, but the choice and sequence does look a little odd. Is there any way to group them up a little -- perhaps to put the Wasp in a Wig up with the background and publication (since he never made it into the published version), and to group "Chess", "Poems" and "Parody" under "Themes"?
And now done. Tim riley talk 11:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly standard to put an image of the cover in the lead, but this one is a pretty uninspiring cover, and given that there are so many excellent and famous illustrations of the story, my vote would be to use one of them.
If you do, I'd suggest cropping it to only one of the two images currently shown in parallel, to make it (roughly) the same aspect ratio as the infobox itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Here's one I made earlier": I have already got a one-up-one-below version here. There's room for it in the info-box.
  • I would amalgamate the major and minor characters subsections -- and attempt to give a brief summary of the linked article in prose, mindful that some readers, for various reasons (e.g. they are reading from a printout), can't follow links. I'm not sure about having a whole subsection that is fundamentally a promoted hatnote. You might, for example, do a paragraph on characters which return, before dealing with the most important of the new ones, perhaps grouped in some sensible way. The link could remain as a main article hatnote if desired.

Other, unsolicited, advice:

  • As she had in the earlier book, the central figure, Alice, again enters a fantastical world: I'm not quite sure this is grammatical ("as she has ... enters"?) -- suggest simply as in the earlier book.
  • I would be tempted to avoid abbreviations in article text (WP:NOTPAPER) -- so instead of "i.e.", go for "that is". However, if we're going to use them, we should use the abbr template to allow unfamiliar/second-language readers to mouseover and see them spelled out.
  • Critical opinion of the book has generally either ranked it on a par with its predecessor or else only just short of it.: this doesn't actually tell us whether critics think it's any good.
  • I think it would be worth, in the background section, giving us an idea of what sort of book Alice's Adventures in Wonderland was -- we mention that it wasn't a mathematical textbook, but don't really get a sense of quite how strange and groundbreaking it was, or indeed how warmly it was received -- both of which seem important context for his desire to write a sequel and for the nature of tha sequel.
  • I have, however, a floating idea of writing a sort of sequel to Alice: should we italicise Alice, as an abbreviated title (cf. "Dire Straits played Sultans at the concert"; "I got the part in Much Ado without much ado.")
  • I wondered when writing this, but concluded that as Carroll didn't put it in quotes or underline it I should leave it vanilla-flavoured. I don't feel strongly though, and am biddable. Tim riley talk 10:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's arguable: Carroll could well have meant the character (="Alice's book" or similar) rather than the title, so I wouldn't insist. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behind the Looking Glass: I assume he used a hyphen?
  • "The illustrations by Mr Tenniel are beyond praise. His rabbit, his puppy, his mad hatter are things not to be forgotten".: we should say, in the text, who said this.
I would say "a review in The Times" or similar, as MOS:QUOTE has The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion (emphasis original). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth briefly setting out what Punch was, and if possible giving a sense of how big a deal it was to be their chief cartoonist (a very big one).
  • Carroll thought him past his best ("no longer good enough").: I'd go for one or other of the quote and paraphrase, since C's words aren't particularly interesting -- we just end up repeating ourselves.
  • Eventually Carroll made a second approach to Tenniel, who reluctantly agreed to provide the illustrations for the new book, but only at his own pace. Carroll noted in his diary, "He thinks it possible (but not likely) that we might get it out by Christmas 1869".: we follow this immediately with On 4 January 1871 Carroll finished the text. Presumably, Carroll at first was complaining that Christmas 1869 was too slow, and that he intended to be done with the text before that: did he hit a roadblock at some point in the writing process?
  • see "Chess" section, below: You can use the section link template here. I'd be tempted to put this kind of editorial-voice direction into an EFN.
I would do {{efn|See {{section link||Chess}} below.}}, which gives this.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ See § Chess below.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For other characters, see List of minor characters in Through the Looking-Glass: Full stop needed.
  • Make sure there is a consistent hyphen (or not) in Humpty-Dumpty.
  • Tricky. Carroll does not hyphenate the name but some other sources do. I have taken a view on this and removed all the hyphens even in quotes of sources that use the hyphen. Tim riley talk 11:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We link "portmanteau" in the body; why not do so in the lead too?
  • Carroll notes in this chapter:: not a fan of "notes" here per MOS:SAID ("writes" will do me) -- and, with my classical literature head on, I'm very reluctant to give the narrator of a work the name of its author -- authors often write in personae, explicit or subconscious. However, "Carroll writes..." avoids that issue.
  • Glen Downey gets a lot of stage-time for an MA and a PhD thesis. I like them, but do we have any mentions of his work in more substantial academic works to satisfy WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • Apart from trimming some uncited material and tidying up the remaining prose I have left this section of the text severely alone, having no expertise whatever in chess. I couldn't begin to judge whether any other text, if such there be, is more authoritative than Downey's, and take comfort from the fact that he's got a Wikipedia article about him.
  • Most poems and songs in the book have no title -- strictly, this needs citing, but it's an odd introduction to a list of titles -- it reads as if we haven't quite finished the thought.
  • Like Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, the book contains many phrases that became common currency... -- this needs a non-primary citation for the fact that these have become common currency.
  • I'm shocked that you didn't think your audience would be interested in the Latin and Greek versions of "Jabberwocky" discussed in the source linked as note 83. However, you might wish to pull out that it has been translated into a total of 65 languages, and is widely discussed within translation studies both as something fiendishly difficult to translate and as a thought experiment on what translation is -- the eponymous article has some good stuff there, and there's a whole book on the subject. There's a more academic one here, whose writing style befits its subject-matter.
  • The oysters in The Walrus and The Carpenter: quote marks here.
  • I notice that we discuss the book's "reception" in the sense of "stuff people say about it", but not its reception in the sense of the wake it leaves through later culture. We have a hint towards "I Am the Walrus" in the "See also": I wonder if it would be possible to cobble together a couple of paragraphs on how later artists, writers, musicians etc have responded to it? At the risk of being more insufferable than usual, you could see the equivalent section of Homeric Hymns for an outsize version of the sort of thing I'm thinking of.
UC, I've added a Legacy subsection. If you have time and inclination I'd value your thoughts. Tim riley talk 09:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's the sort of thing I had in mind. I may have a scan through some sources to see if e.g. anyone's commented on the links between Alice and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (I acknowledge that most of the "legacy" would be of the Alice/Wonderland concept rather than this sequel specifically). For now, how about Red Queen hypothesis? Also, I've attempted to fix a very odd markup error at the end of the Chess section: you may want to check that it now looks as you intended. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the hypothesis (news to me): thank you. I've had a further grapple with the Chess subsection and I think it is OK now. Tim riley talk 13:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will be no surprise that I greatly enjoyed reading that. The decision to include judiciously chosen quotations is, I think, a good one: we really get a feel for the book as well as an education about it. I hope the above is helpful and look forward to seeing it at FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You bet the above is helpful! Thank you so much! Tim riley talk 11:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "In Carroll's day and well into the twentieth century "looking-glass" was the normal form; "mirror" was widely regarded as a genteelism." This seems Fowler's opinion rather than accepted fact. OED cites Addison, Wesley and Conrad for looking-glass; Spencer, Herbert, Locke, Hume, Dickens and Shaw for mirror. Were the latter writers indulging in genteelism?
  • I recognise one authority higher than Fowler, and that's God: check your Authorised Version and you'll find "looking glass" but no "mirror". As Nancy Mitford was still dismissing "mirror" as non-U in the 1950s I'm happy with the way this is phrased. Nobody would look to Dickens or, God forbid, Shaw as a model of usage and as far as I know they never pontificated about mirror-v-looking glass. But I'll add "according to Modern English Usage". Tim riley talk 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not who is a model of usage but whether the article is right to say that mirror was a genteelism. Looking-glass sounds much more of a genteelism and that seems confirmed by Mitford saying that mirror is non-U. I have the 2nd and 3rd editions of Fowler and they do not mention it. Does the 1st edition really say that mirror (not looking-glass) is a genteelism? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does. (And you don't want the god-awful third edition of Fowler anyway: the fourth is much, much better.)
  • Well at least I am not the only person to find it strange. Snippet in Google Books: Gowers, H.W. Fowler: The Man and His Teaching, Page 9, "mirror for looking - glass , Fowler had recorded those curious facts . I confess that the last of them has always puzzled me . I suppose it must be true that mirror is a genteelism , if both Fowler and Professor Ross say so".
  • The picture of the first edition cover is a poor photo, much too dark. There are plenty of better ones on the web and presumably not covered by copyright.
  • I concur and am thinking about replacing it with this. What think you?
  • Anglo-Saxon attitudes. I have not come across this before. I see that it was used as the title of a novel by Angus Wilson, but I am not sure that it is common currency.
  • "According to Cohen, the manuscript has never been found". Why according to Cohen? Is his accuracy doubted?
  • I am not clear about the distinction between white pieces and white pawns in the table.
  • You could hardly find someone less expert in chess than me, but I know that although they are all chessmen, the pawns are called pawns and the others, pieces. Lord knows why! Tim riley talk 16:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know very little about chess, but I think "pieces" applies to all chessmen, including the pawns, and sources I have found use the term in the same sense. How about having pawns as the first column and 'Other pieces' as the second? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should say in the image labels that they are by Tenniel.
  • "For other characters, see List of minor characters in Through the Looking-Glass". This redirects to List of minor characters in the Alice series. I suggest redirecting to [[List of minor characters in the Alice series#Appearing in Alice Through the Looking-Glass]]
  • "The March Hare and Hatter[n 7] appear in the guise of "Anglo-Saxon messengers" called "Haigha" and "Hatta"". If I have it right, only Haigha is Anglo-Saxon, and that is because of his peculiar gestures.
  • George Grossmith, Jr. Pedant's point. My understanding is that if an abbreviation ends with the same letter as the full word, it should not be followed by a full stop. I see that MOS:POINTS says that this is British usage, not US. As Grossmith was British, I think that the title of the article on him is wrong.
  • I entirely concur. Because Wikipedia is American in origin the rest of us are lumbered with antiquated American punctuation. No present-day writer of the King's English would refer as Wikipedia does to "H. M. S. Pinafore (known to Grove, The Times, The Guardian and the Telegraph as "HMS Pinafore") and the government's civil service typing reforms of the late 1960s did away with superfluous full stops in people's initials (and much other clutter). But I think Wikipedia's quaint quirks are something up with which we have to put. Tim riley talk 07:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree. Wikipedia accepts that British people use British spelling, so why not punctuation? You may not want to bother changing the Grossmith article, but I would delete the full stop in the looking-glass one. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As well as being an author, Gilbert illustrated his own verses in the magazine Fun. The biographer Michael Bakewell". I took this to mean Gilbert's biographer until I checked. This needs clarifying.
Thank you very much, Dudley. Some v. useful stuff in there, and the article benefits therefrom. Tim riley talk 07:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • Several sources need page ranges for chapters
  • Not quite with you: I can't see any citations to printed sources that don't include a page number. If you mean page ranges for chapters in the Sources section, I have never included them in any article I've worked on: they don't help the reader find the cited material, provided the actual page number is given in the References section. Tim riley talk 07:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced of the usefulness of some/any of the "See also" links.
  • Glad you think that: I thought the same but didn't feel it right to zap the section on my own say-so, but as there are two of us of that opinion I have gladly removed it. Tim riley talk 07:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be no help for it, but I stumbled a little over "on mathematics, on".
  • "By another account, not confirmed by Carroll". This implies that Cohen's account was. Was it?
  • "Carroll made a substantial cut of about 1,400 words. The omitted section ... The author cut the section." Not sure that the repetition works.
  • "the suppressed material." Suppressed seems a strong word.
  • I really like the "Plot", but for a Wikipedia article it is very long and detailed. I am at a bit of a loss as to what to advise.
  • It seems to me there are really only two ways to approach the Plot section: either to give a short overview of the story with limited mention of characters, quotations and verses, or to take the story a chapter at a time and give more detail. I have gone for the latter, taking care to give each chapter only 100–200 words of text (in addition to quoting parts of the verse). Tim riley talk 07:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later: I've been doing a spot of comparison for length with the plot sections of other featured articles about novels. There are some that run to more than 1,000 words; this one currently stands at 1,500. You, or FAC reviewers, may boggle at the extra 400–500, but I hope I'll get away with it. – Tim riley talk 09:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(White) makes several consecutive moves while the (Red) opponent's moves are skipped". Does the former not include the latter?
I think Gog's right: it's not wrong so much as tautological. If White makes several moves in a row, that's the same as saying that Red's (intervening) moves are skipped, so we only need the first half. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed accordingly. Thank you both. Tim riley talk 07:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started and then noticed Dudley's input, so I shall pause a while in case it causes changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready when you are, Mr de Mille! Very useful stuff so far. Tim riley talk 07:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An extensive treatment of the chess motif in Carroll's novel was made by Glen Downey in his master's thesis, later expanded and incorporated into his dissertation on the use of chess as a device in Victorian fiction. In the former piece". Do we need this? If we do, could it be footnoted?
  • I'm beginning to perceive the makings of a consensus to remove, relegate or trim the chess section, but I'm still hesitant about doing so, and will leave things as they are for now and see if other editors here or at FAC are in favour of removal, or relegation, or trimming. Tim riley talk 07:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common currency phrases: do we need the same full list in the lead - which is supposed to be a summary - as in the article:

Your specific queries: Apart from my comments on phrases in the lead and the plot summary length above the relative and absolute lengths seem appropriate. (Writing a plot summary of Looking-Glass could be an admission test for an institution for the mentally disturbed.) Lead image - don't even think about changing it! I like chronological order, so I would put "Reception" before "Adaptations", but that is fiddling. A fine, fine piece of work, even by your exulted standards. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Gog, for these points. The article is better for them. Tim riley talk 07:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1

[edit]

Apologies, but these comments will come in fits and starts and in no particular order.

Themes - Chess
  • Is it worth explaining, here in the body, or in a footnote, why LC has red and white pieces, rather than the conventional black and white? The LC Society suggests it is historical, red and white being the usual colours of the ivory or bone sets commonly available in the Victorian period, [1].
Background and first publication
  • "literature for children, which was frequently didactic and moralistic" - any benefit in linking these. Nor sure they will be obvious to all readers.
  • "the daughters of his neighbours Henry and Lorina Liddell" - worth specifying that these were his Oxford neighbours? Alternatively, you could introduce HL as Dean of LC's college?
  • I've gone with your first suggestion. Not being an Oxonian I don't know whether as Dean, Liddell was in any sense Dodgson's boss, and I think just "Oxford neighbours" will do nicely. Tim riley talk 10:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is generally accepted that the Dean of Christchurch, second only to God, is everyone's boss. Although recent events may have shaken that conviction. KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Parody, caricature and coinages
  • "The White Knight contains elements of Carroll himself and of a college friend, Augustus Vernon Harcourt" - I think Augustus is this chap, Augustus George Vernon Harcourt, and would warrant a bluelink.
  • "Oxford Movement" - I don't know what the answer is, but this bit is bugging me. It's so complex, and dead, as an issue, that it's perhaps irrelevant here, but the contention over the Thirty-nine Articles, and Jowett and Carroll's direct involvement, suggests to me that a little more might help the reader. But how to summarise it?
  • How about "In a 1933 essay Shane Leslie suggests that in Through the Looking Glass Carroll was satirising the controversial Oxford Movement in the Church of England"? (Or, for "controversial", "disputatious" or "polemical"?) Incidentally, both Harold Bloom and Morton N. Cohen in their biographies of Carroll pour scorn on Leslie's hypothesis, but Mgr Ronald Knox, who knew of what he spoke, informally collaborated with Leslie on the essay and I think it should be mentioned. I don't think we need mention Carroll's own position vis-à-vis the movement, as his biographers don't make much of it. Tim riley talk 07:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • Douglas Adams - in addition to "six impossible things", is it worth mentioning "42"? For Adams, it's the answer to life, the universe and everything, and it was a number that also interested Carroll, Rule Forty-two, although that is Wonderland, not Looking Glass.
  • It is possible to find 42s in Through the Looking Glass, too: according to Martin Gardner "... the White King sends 4,207 horses and men to restore Humpty Dumpty, and 7 is a factor of 42. Alice’s age in the second book is 7 years and 6 months and 7 x 6 = 42" but this strikes me as tangential, not to say laboured, and Adams denied that Carroll was a great influence on him: he gave a quite unrelated account of how 42 came to be the answer to the ultimate question. I thought about mentioning all this, but decided against. Tim riley talk 07:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the bitty/disorganised responses. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the smallest need to be sorry. I'm pleased to get such useful comments – thank you! Tim riley talk 07:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dmass

[edit]

A few nit-picking observations on style only.

  • Could the repetition of 'sequel' in the lead be avoided?
  • Yes. Good. Done.
  • Is 'again' needed after 'as in the earlier book'?
  • No. Blitzed. Thank you.
  • I enjoyed n1 on the etiquette of mirrors.
  • "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean" - should 'when' be capitalised when the others in the list aren't?
  • I don't think so – it's in mid-sentence in the book, but I'll ponder.
  • I think we may be at cross-purposes (probably because I expressed myself badly): I don't think it should be capitalised because the others aren't.
  • 'This was not confirmed by Carroll, nor an alternative account stating...' - should it be 'nor was'?
  • 'working slowly and intermittently; in February 1867...' would a full stop be better, given that you don't use the semi-colon to break up the rest of the para?
  • (The title page carries the publication date 1872, but Through the Looking-Glass was on sale in time for Christmas 1871.) It looks odd to me to have a whole, separate sentence in brackets - are the brackets necessary?
  • I put them in to detach this slight digression from the main text and they are intended to convey that the sentence only just escapes being banished to a footnote. But I am not immovable on this and will unbracket if you press the point. Tim riley talk 11:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has exactly the effect you describe! I think you should nail your colours to the mast: either it's worth a sentence of its own or it belongs in a footnote. Both would be fine, and I certainly wouldn't lose it altogether. Dmass (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 10:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'She arrives in a forest where a gnat teaches her about looking glass insects – creatures part-insect and part-object – such as "Bread-and-butterfly", "Rocking-horsefly", before vanishing.' - is there one clause too many? Perhaps a new sentence for the vanishing?
  • '"The Walrus and the Carpenter" employs the rhyme-scheme and metre of Thomas Hood's ballad "The Dream of Eugene Aram", but is not a parody of it. Carroll commented, "I had no particular poem in mind. The metre is a common one, and I don’t think 'Eugene Aram' suggested it more than the many other poems I have read in the same metre".' - Don't the two halves of this contradict each other? Would it be better to say something like: 'Although the rhyme-scheme and metre of X mirror that of Y, it is not a parody of it; indeed, Carroll denied that he had the poem in mind: 'The metre is a common one' etc.
  • The German translation of Jabberwocky is oddly reminiscent of the Ring Cycle (all that alliteration, I suppose).
  • Garstig glatter glitsch'riger Glimmer, anyone! But curiously Carroll could not have seen Das Rheingold (1869) before he started writing "Jabberwocky" (c. 1855)
  • Exactly! Perhaps Wagner was influenced by Jabberwocky...
  • I think there may be one too many of the contemporary reviews; they all say quite similar things.

A very enjoyable read, as always. Sorry not to have anything more substantive to offer. Dmass (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. I'll enjoy working through them tomorrow. Tim riley talk 17:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed enjoy working through them. Thank you for some excellent suggestions. Tim riley talk 07:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

[edit]
  • I might not wait until the third sentence to inform the reader that this is a sequel to Alice. You do say it followed Alice, but that is subject to interpretation.
  • "into a world that she can see beyond it." Possibly "within it"?
  • While from the first paragraph of "Background", it is, I suppose, possible to derive what Victorian children's literature was like, it may be better to spend a few words saying what it was like.
  • "This was not confirmed by Carroll and not was an alternative account" should the second "not" be "neither"?
  • "that we might get it out by Christmas 1869".[23]" It's unclear if this is supposed to be a wry reference to a lengthy period of time. Nothing in that paragraph, otherwise, is dated, and the previous paragraph left off at "a further year" beyond January of 1869. When he said it might be good to add.
  • "and in London by Macmillan." You have referred to Macmillan as an individual, and each such reference, excepting the infobox, which links to the firm, could be read as referring to the individual. The reader who is ignorant of such firms and has not followed the link in the infobox, might be pardoned in thinking him more long-lived than he was.
  • "The first American edition was issued by Lee and Sheppard of Boston and New York in 1872.[33]" Authorised?
That's all I have. An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt: good points all, and greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 07:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess problem

[edit]

To those who have commented on the presence/length of the Chess section – UC, Dudley and Gog – I've footnoted the technical stuff and combined the two previous images. Grateful for your views (and other editors' too, of course) on how it is now. Tim riley talk 12:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I like that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

I've made a few tweaks here and there – nothing too controversial, but you may wish to check them out to see if you agree.

As this has had Uncle Tom Cobley and all come through this already, there isn't much for me to look at in terms of prose, but I picked up the following points:

  • There are a couple of images which need alt text
  • You have "Humpty-Dumpty" in the lead and "Humpty Dumpty" elsewhere
  • Someone will point this out at some point, so I may as well flag it now: MOS:NOVELPLOT says that "A summary for a full-length novel should be between 400 and 700 words", and this one is currently running at 1686. There are those who will rigorously tag long plots and edit them down to the bare bones to hit that target, regardless of whether this becomes an FA or not.
  • Really capitals for High Church and Low Church?
  • In adaptations you have Mark Charlap linked to Morris Isaac "Moose" Charlap – was Mark a pseudonym or something?
  • Internet Movie Database is a no-no as far as sourcing goes – banned some time ago
  • There are two thesis in the sources. The PhD may be okay is it can pass the WP:SCHOLARSHIP test; MA theses are less likely to do so and should be used "only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" (ie. been used or cited by other academic works).

I hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SC. All highly useful. Off to FAC now, methinks. Tim riley talk 11:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to everyone above for a superb peer review – extraordinarily helpful. Tim riley talk 12:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot sections

[edit]

The Manual of Procedure (MOS:NOVELPLOT) specifies a plot summary of 400–700 words. The one for this article submitted at the FAC runs to 1,100 words. The MoS states that editors wishing to have a plot summary longer than the recommended 700 words should "be prepared to explain why on the talk page". This is my reasoning. Each of the chapters of the book, except for the brief chapters 11 and 12, is a self-contained episode, similar to a short story. One could provide a short synopsis of the whole book, describing the broad sweep of the plot – a dreamt chess game where the heroine meets nursery-rhyme characters – without detailing the characters and events in each story but I do not think that would be useful to the reader of the article. It would not, in my view, give the reader a clear idea of the contents of the book. Tim riley talk 14:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a solid approach. The MOS is flexible on the length point, given there are always going to be works that can't (or shouldn't) be constrained by the hard word count. This is one, I think, where a little leeway should be allowed. Without it, it would be a very simplistic description that does not aid readers in their understanding.- SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It works, it's well written, it doesn't feel excessively long. I agree that cutting the plot down to <700 words would disproportionately deprive a reader of helpful information. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the trouble to post your rationale. I agree with SchroCat and Gog the Mild that this falls within MOS:NOVELPLOT exception that "Very occasionally, there may be exceptional reasons that warrant a longer summary." MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colleagues, I'm grateful to all three of you for your encouragement. Tim riley talk 13:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Through_the_Looking-Glass&oldid=1301933453"