Talk:Fahrenheit 451

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarisse's age[edit]


Clarisse is "almost 17" at the beginning of the novel. So, she is "16" or "almost 17", not "17". - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where I got that from, but on page 5 (my edition anyway) she says, "I'm seventeen and crazy." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

While she does say that, later in the novel she says that she'll be seventeen in a month, I think. I remember her saying she isn't seventeen yet, just not what page it is on. Umbreon00 (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the quote I found in the book itself, various Cliff's Notes-esque summaries I found all identify her as being 17. If you find your quote, we might have something. From where I'm sitting, though, the only sources we have say 17. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

In my edition, she says she is "17 and crazy" on page 21, but corrects herself to say that she is 17 "next month" on page 23. (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The anon is correct. I shall quote it: "Yes." He thought about it. "Yes, I have. God knows why. You're peculiar, you're aggravating, yet you're so easy to forgive. You say you're seventeen?"

"Well--Next month."

"How odd. How strange. And my wife is thirty and yet you seem so much older at times I can't get over it."

Page 23, lines 7, 8, and 9. Umbreon00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I can independently confirm that she is 16. An anonymous user changed it back even after this discussion. After concluding my post here, I will see what clarifications I can make in the article to be accurate. I have the book on a Kindle and as authority and validity for my case, I will be uploading pictures. First, I have searched the book for "sixteen". I found one entry. It is unrelated. I am unsure how to upload the image, if somebody would like it, they could help me. I then searched the book for "seventeen". This yielded three results. One of these is here saying she is a month shy of seventeen. This is later in the story. I also have the image for this one. I will most likely edit the page to accomodate a chronologically natural understanding of the book. This will be the most accurate and practical solution. It will also prevent this from becoming an issue in the future as it provides clarifying information. Michael Harrington 03:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefensorOfApollo (talkcontribs)

She is in fact, 16, not 17. I have corrected the mistake in the article and put a code comment to warn people about making the mistake that she is 17. Marking as resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Linking to fireman?[edit]


Why is the first line linking the firemen in this book to real life firemen. They serve different purposes and are not equivocal, I don't think they should be linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DefensorOfApollo (talkcontribs) 03:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that linking here is probably not desired. I have delinked and put quotes around it instead. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Recent Edit (March 1)[edit]


The subject of Fahrenheit 451 is controversial. On one hand, it is a discussion of government control and censorship. On the other hand, it is a social critique, a warning of what might happen if people are apathetic and don't protect their rights. For anyone interested in what I have to say, you should read pages 53-62 in the book. While Bradbury discusses both censorship and natural social pressures as explanations for the emergence of a dystopian society in the book, my personal opinion is that he focused much more on social pressures, not censorship. It was "technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure" that "carried the trick", not the government. Yes, Wikipedia articles should be impartial, so my personal opinions and interpretations are not to be taken too seriously. However, I think the edits on March 1 by Thiesen should be examined carefully and then largely undone. They have removed meaningful content from the article and skewed the interpretation of the text. These edits certainly are not impartial. They have almost entirely removed discussion of an important interpretation of the text which has been supported in several peer reviewed scholarly articles (see "What 'Carried the Trick'? Mass Exploitation and the Decline of Thought in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451." by Rafeeq McGiveron in Extrapolation 37.3) and by the author himself. (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What it looked like to me was that Thiesen's edits simply changed the lead to include a Bradbury interview, moved around some info, and added more information which included stuff from Bradbury himself. As far as I can tell, no meaningful content was removed, and all of the content from the previous edits still seem to be present in the article. Some parts even seem to expand on the stuff already there. Granted, I haven't exactly investigated Thiesen's edits in depth, but they seem sound. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The edits completely remove mention of this interpretation of the text from the introduction and remove all discussion of this interpretation save for what is said in the block quotes and a single mention of Bradbury's 2007 interview at the bottom of the Themes section. Although the block quotes in the Themes section do address this interpretation of the text, it is the Wikipedia article's job to explain the contents of those quotations and clarify their meaning to the reader. You can use a quotation to bring out different points, depending on how you introduce and explain it, and I think the way these quotes are being explained presently colors the reader's interpretation. Moreover, I think the edits marginalize the interpretation of Bradbury's novel as a social critique of contemporary society, rather than a critique on censorship and government control. As I have said, I think the former interpretation is at least as important as the second. It shouldn't be offered as an alternate interpretation, but rather as a second and equally important one. I have read more thoroughly, and I think I was mistaken and hasty in calling for Thiesen's edits being undone or largely undone. I think what needs to be done now is to re-integrate the societal critique interpretation in the introduction and Themes section. It would really be a small edit that could make a large difference. (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a fair judgment. Do you think you could make the necessary edits? TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh gosh, sorry for neglecting this discussion, I forgot all about it. I got interested in this article because I was writing an English paper on Fahrenheit 451. Then writing the paper kinda took over my life. And now here I am, at the end of the quarter, trying to keep my head above water with all my classes. I could certainly make the edits. I'm done with finals on Tuesday, so I could probably get it done by Wednesday. (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits have put the social themes of the book back to the fore-front. I think it helps resolve your valid concerns. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Burned Down -> Burned Out[edit]

Changed an instance of "burned down" to "burned out." Houses in Fahrenheit 451 are fireproof, and the firemen only burn the contents of the house - books, furniture... people.

You could have said this in the edit summary. Please use that next time. Also, seeing that the phrase "burn out" has nothing to do with actual burning, I've changed it back. But you bring up a good point, and I'm open to having an alternate wording. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 01:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The current wording no longer says either phrase, so this is obsolete. In general though, the semantics introduced by the fact that the houses themselves are fireproof is tricky. Also, when Montag burns his house, the books does say that he literally burns it: I guess the fireproof casings can fail. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not changing it on main page because not sure but...[edit]

Look, I've read the book, and I'm pretty sure that it's not about government censorship. It's just another of those 'TV makes you stupid' stories. You saw a lot of them on the twilight zone too, oddly. Honestly it felt like a complaint about a society that was addicted to TV and unimportant factoids, not a complaint about a government that removed dissenting ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

"... the novel is frequently interpreted as being critical of state-sponsored censorship.... Bradbury stated that the book explored the effects of television and mass media on the reading of literature.[9] Bradbury went even further to elaborate his meaning, saying specifically that the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state—it is the people." - SummerPhD (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Bradbury would agree with you. In multiple interviews and writings he suggests that F451 is about the dumbing down of literature and not really about censorship. Yet, the novel itself seems somewhat at odds with this though; and certainly legions of high school teachers and others have interpreted censorship as a primary theme. In the end, a book is about what its readers think it is, even when the author themselves suggests otherwise. The work has to stand alone. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Help me generate a list of scholarly articles[edit]

Hi, I see that this article has 230 watchers. I don't know how many of those are active editors though. This article is in pretty poor shape. The writing is sub-par and the text often doesn't even match up to the outline structure. It will largely have to be re-written. It's pretty unfortunate that after almost 4000 edits by 2000 distinct users, we still have such a shoddy article. Sort of shows that piece-meal development doesn't always work.

I am having trouble finding peer-reviewed scholarly articles that analyze Fahrenheit 451. Google searches largely turn up stuff just related to Bradbury himself or essays written by college students. I am not familiar with many English Lit journals. Heck, I don't even know what the best way to search for Eng Lit articles is. Perhaps we can leverage the knowledge of the page watchers to at least develop a list of articles directly related to the novel that would be good to perhaps use as references? Please add any below that you can find or are aware of?

If you really have an interest in the novel, now would be a good time to reinvigorate it. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A Google scholar search turns up a number of sources that seem to fit the bill: [1]. While some are clearly mentions or merely allude to F 451 as a dystopian society, others seem to be of considerable depth. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
This PDF file from Cuesta College gives a pretty good listing. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

24th century in fiction?[edit]

This article is currently listed in Category:24th century in fiction. I do not recall the time frame of the novel ever being pinned down. My copy says that "we've won two atomic wars since 1990", so it must be set after 1990. Other than that, it mentioned several times that about half a century has elapsed since books were banned. It's possible that pieces of information are given that can narrow down the century to the 24th but I do not see them. This category will have to be removed without a convincing argument to sustain it, perhaps replaced with the more ambiguous Category:Works about the future. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The category was added by this edit. I have contacted the user to see if they remember why they added it. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I cannot recall exactly why I added it, but Sparknotes agrees, GrahamHardy (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, User:GrahamHardy. Sparknotes seems clearly wrong here. The novel is set at an unspecified time. A google search for "when does 'Fahrenheit 451' take place" provides many answers on Q&A forums suggesting as much, with the only instances of "24 century" referring to Sparknotes. Sparknotes also claims Clarisse is a "seventeen-year-old", a demonstrably false statement that is a testament to their rigor, or lack thereof. A brief reading of their character list makes it seem like they are also rather extrapolative regarding their characters' personalties. I've scoured the novel for more clues regarding the time setting and have failed to find any. All things considered, I don't think Sparknotes can be considered a reliable source here. I will remove the category. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The 2000 book Rad Bradbury: A Critical Companion by Robin Anne Reid confirms that F451 is set in an "unnamed city in the United States, possibly in the Midwest, in some undated future". I have seen the 24th century figure mentioned here and there since I last commented. Unfortunately I forget where but I believe they were study-guide-like or online material. The unreliability of these sources has become quite apparent while researching this novel. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm currently looking at a copy of "The Fireman". Its opening sentences pinpoint the time setting at "One thirty-five a.m. Thursday morning, October 4th, 2052 AD" (although I note that day would actually be a Friday, not a Thursday). I haven't read the story yet but Mr. Montag is introduced on the first page so it definitely has overlap with F451. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"The Pedestrian" is set "in this world of A.D. 2131" in November. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The year of "The Pedestrian" may have been updated by Bradbury at some point from 2053 to 2131. See the discussion Talk:The_Pedestrian#Changing the year back to 2053. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Turns out (as I explain on the other talk page) that the original year from the 1951 publication was 2131, then Bradbury changed it to 2052 for republication in 1953's The Golden Apples of the Sun anthology. The changes were somewhat sloppily made and a time contradiction occurred within the story regarding "last year's election in 2052". The error was published several times before S Is for Space (1966) set the year to 2053 and fixed the contradiction. The Match to Flame book must have simply used the original story's time-setting. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am "unresolving" this topic because new evidence has come to light. First, here are some links to archived discussions that touch on this: 21st century or 24th century?, time?, Notes on setting and other issues. The last discussion is rather interesting because it points out a quote from the novel that supports the 24th century figure. Captain Beaty during his monologue says, "Out of the nursery into the college and back to the nursery; there's your intellectual pattern for the past five centuries or more." It's unclear when he is anchoring the beginning of this pattern. I would agree based on the text that the most likely explaination is the pattern is presumed to start in the 20th century. Yet Beatty may also be using the Civil War or the 19th century or the Fireman's "rule-book" official timeline (mentioned by Beatty but undetailed in the novel). Also Beatty says "five centuries or more", which is not precise enough to pin it down to the 24th century. I think the best idea is to leave the article text saying set in an unspecified future with a footnote giving Beatty's "five century or more" quote. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Feb. 1970 article "A Study of the Allusions in Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451'" by Peter Sisario (The English Journal, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 201-205+212) is a reference that uses the 24-th century figure. This is probably the most sensible interpretation of the novel's words, however, as the footnotes details, the text is not specific enough to support this figure definitively. Although it's nice to have a ref that gives the 24th century as the time setting, I think the present wording of the Wikipedia article should stay as is. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The timeframe wasn't important enough to include in the novel itself, so I don't think that we need to string together tenuous sources to nail down a century. In fact, I support removing the "one interpretation" claim in the footnote as it is not clear why that interpretation is more worthy of inclusion than the others. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


One of the sections I'm least happy about in the article is the section on themes, which seems largely based on just p.59 of Reid's Ray Bradbury: A Critical Companion. I'm not quite sure how it should be written but I think gathering different themes suggested by various writers is a good start. You may suggest or add potential themes to the list I've started below. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

list of potential themes
  • censorship
  • a frequent cited theme although Bradbury himself seems to distance himself from it as a purposed one
  • resistance against conformity imposed by a mass media
  • Reid p.99 (originally suggested by M. Keith Booker?)
  • de Koster p.95: Kingsley Amis's "A Skillfully Drawn Conformist Hell"
  • use of technology to control individuals
  • Reid p.99 (originally suggested by M. Keith Booker?)
  • self-examination
  • de Koster p.55: Rafeeq O. McGiveron's "Mirrors and Self-Examination in Fahrenheit 451"
  • metamorphosis
  • de Koster p.63: Wayne L. Johnson's "Montag's Spiritual Development"
  • the importance of wilderness
  • de Koster p.66: Rafeeq O. McGiveron's "The Power of Wilderness in Fahrenheit 451"
  • consumerism
  • de Koster p.85: David Seed's "A Condemnation of Consumerism"
  • nihilism
  • de Koster p.113: William F. Touponce's "Overcoming Nihilism in the Modern World"

Spoken Word Grammy nominee?[edit]

According to the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album article, one of the audiobooks for Fahrenheit 451 was nominated for a Grammy. The article gives no source and I haven't been able to confirm this. I have confirmed (using the Grammy website) that the Grammy winner is correct but I haven't seen a listing of its competition that years. (There's also some disparity in how the Grammy website and Wikipedia are calling the Awards of that year. The Grammy website is listing those Awards as for 1976, while the Wikipedia article is calling them 1977.) Jason Quinn (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Found some references. It is mentioned in the Jan. 22, 1977 Billboard newspaper in the section "19th Annual Grammy Awards Final Nominations" under "Best Spoken Word Recording". I can't quite make out the page from the Google scan. The relevant part says "Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, Listening Library". A further Google Book search finds two more confirmations, both unfortunately only barely allow public inspection of the sources. I could however see small blurbs in the search results that were readable scans. One from "School Library Journal, Volume 51, Issues 4-6" (published by R.R. Bowker Company, Xerox Company, and originally from Pennsylvania State University) reads "1976 Listening Library receives its first GRAMMY* nomination for Ray Bradbury's reading of Fahrenheit 451." The other is from "Previews, Volume 5" (published 1976 by R. R. Bowker Company and originally from the University of Michigan) and says "Our audio production of Ray Bradbury reading from his Fahrenheit 451 was nominated for a 'Grammy' Award as one of the best spoken recordings of 1976,...". I have preserved the bolding used in the sources. I think it's verfied by reasonable sources that it was in fact Grammy nominated. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
The pages in Billboard with the Grammy nominations are 110 and 117. Although I can't see the page number on the first page of the Google scans, at the bottom of the page says "(Continued on page 117)". When you click it and go to the remainder of the article, it says "Continued from page 110", which is the page we want. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Year of the computer game[edit]

I'm trying to verify the year of the computer game. The current article says 1986, which I think is wrong. I have easily found many websites that suggest the game was released in 1984 and also the reviews given in the Fahrenheit 451 (video game) article were published in 1985, which makes 1986 sort of absurd. Still, I haven't found any reviews in sources I think easily pass WP:RS. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Please reply to this topic at the Fahrenheit 451 (video game) article talk page's "Year of release discussion" thread. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The date is just a minor point, a more important addition that needs to be put in is that the game does say Fahrenheit 451, but it is loosely based on Fahrenheit 451, being placed after the events of the book. (BTW It is more based on the book than the film as those cybernetic dogs make an appearance in the game. I can't remember much more about the game, as it has been quite a while since I played it. The game is now probably considered as Abandonware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis section[edit]

One missing section so far is an analysis section where the writing style itself is elaborated. The summary at Spark Notes gives an outline of what such a section might look like. Things to include would be the narration style (third-person limited omniscinet), identification of the protagonist (Montag) and antagonist (Captain Beatty and society), the climax, the falling action, tense, foreshadowing, symbolism, and so forth. The general kind of stuff covered by high school teachers. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

" the future after the year ____"[edit]

A new issue has come to my attention regarding the time setting of the novel. Those "cubbyhole editors" appear to have been tweaking the year mentioned for the two atomic years from its original value of 1960. Various versions have subsequently also used 1990 and 2022. This link to the Ray Bradbury Message Board gives a fairly complete listing of the values used by the various publications. I don't yet know if these changes were made with Bradbury's approval or not. It seems that another footnote may be required over the time setting. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]


for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fahrenheit 451/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the status of this review? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Doing now... — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is indeed clear and concise, the lede is a tad bit skimpy and per WP:LEAD could be expanded a bit more, but it's good enough for GA and that could be something to address in a subsequent peer review afterwards.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See above about lead section, and also words to watch. I did some copyediting but words like "though", "also", "althought", "but", "therefore", and "however", would be something to watch out for during copyediting and remove if at all possible.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See below about citation-needed-tags.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. I've added a bunch of cites-needed-tags. These will need to be addressed before the review can move on.
2c. it contains no original research. See above about cite-needed tags.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Okay here, covers major aspects appropriately. I'd recommend going forwards expanding more about Censorship and Adaptation sects.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes, but see above about actually expanding subsects, particularly the part about history of Censorship please.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. No problems here, NPOV presentation throughout.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. If we exclude simple vandalism by IPs, stable history, just keep an eye on this in the future.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. File:Hollywood10.jpg = missing fair use rationale for use on this article page.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. See above about image usage missing fair-use rationale for this page. Also, what about an image of author Ray Bradbury?
7. Overall assessment. GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Just dropping in ... I see a few other issues :

  • The article seems to be a bit heavy on the plot summary, having had a quick look at a few other book GAs such as Donkey Punch (novel). If elements of the plot are important because of their relevance in social or political history, they need to be cited to a source that says so.
  • The lead contains the sentence "The title refers to the temperature that Bradbury understood to be the autoignition point of paper". Per GA criteria 1b, any sentence in the lead should be a summary of information in the body - however the reference to paper and autoignition does not appear in the body anywhere.
  • The "Adaptations" section contains a lot of short paragraphs, several containing just one sentence. Per GA criteria 1b, these should be amalgamated.

In return, I'll see if I can cite some of the [citation needed]s, but I can't promise anything. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I've been watching the changes and will take care of most of the suggestions. I disagree with a few but I'll discuss them on a case-by-case basis. I'm extremely busy right now (baby just born) and need some time to adjust to the new lifestyle. Haven't been able to edit but only a minute or two at a time, which is insufficient for the work needed here. Don't close review if goes past 7 days. Will be done. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Congratulations! And no worries, we'll give ya some more time, — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
    • As a father of two, I can assure you that being a new parent is several orders of magnitude more important than getting a GA to pass! I've only cited two things but time permitting I'll see if I can do more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Jason Quinn, have you had a chance yet to take another look at this? Totally no worries if you need a bunch more time, — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Last night I started catching up on the recent edits. I'm still only editing in short bursts that don't require much concentration. In a few more days the company that is staying with us will be leaving which will free up a bit more time. Tonight or tomorrow I plan on undoing an edit that a citation bot made a while back that was poor. As for your suggestions, one of the most important is regarding the photo of the Hollywood Ten. That's going to take a bit of work to figure out. I have to educate myself a little on US Fair Use laws. It would be a real shame to lose that photo. What's extremely strange is that the information Corbis gives for the photo may be wrong. I'd really like to pin down the location of the photo with 100% certainty. At the moment I don't trust Corbis' information that it was the Los Angles Courthouse. Images of the LA courthouse don't seem to match. I've been collecting a bunch of info on the Hollywood Ten (really fascinating story actually) just to try to solve this. One small thing I don't agree with was some of the changes you made of "but" to "and". I'm aware that people often use "but" incorrectly or when "and" would be a better choice but I think you over-extend the universality of using "and" instead of "but". So long as there's some element of contradiction (and it may be quite ethereal), "but" is an acceptable word choice; also, style and flow should be considered before changing "but" to "and". I will get around to polish'ing off this review. I spent literally probably or more hours on the article just to get it to nomination status, so I'm not going anywhere. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, totally fine, no problems. Keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, any updates? — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Been over a month since GA Hold, so closing this one for now. Feel free to let me know if you want to renominate for a 2nd GA Review at a later point in time, and if I've got a chance I'll take another look. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Fahrenheit with the California Commonwealth Gold Or Silver?[edit]

As it stands, the article says that the novel won a Gold Award from the California Commonwealth Club, but the Club's list on their website says it won Silver. (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Spelling error[edit]

This is just a minor thing -- in the sentence "Montag leaves the river in the countryside, where he meets the exiled drifters, lead by a man named Granger" "lead" should be spelled "led." Kimdulina (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never done this before, so I'm quite sure I'm doing it wrong, but there's a minor grammatical error in the fourth sentence under "The Sieve and the Sand." It should read " Montag laments Mildred's suicide attempt, the woman who burned herself, and the constant din of bombers flying over their house taking part in a looming war NEITHER he, nor anybody else, knows much about." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:14, 20 April 2014‎ (UTC)

Fixed Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)