|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edith Wharton article.|
|Edith Wharton has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Women writers||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
I just fixed a link to a disambiguation page and I couldn't help but notice a style issue:
- St.-Brice-sous-Forêt, Val-d'Oise, Île-de-France, France
I know it's usually the way it is done in the U.S., but a more natural way would be to write this: St.-Brice-sous-Forêt (Val-d'Oise) France
Additionally, although the Val-d'Oise departement does belong to the Ile-de-France region, the region territorial division was created much later after Edith's death, in the 1980's I believe.
You guys can fix it if you feel like it. Tony Bruguier 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I rectified/explained the point about Val d'Oise not existing until after her death in my edit of 2 September 2006.CWO 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No mention of Edith Wharton's lover, Morton Fullerton? Curious. (And if I've missed it, he's not give much mention.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjdschwartzstein (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I write the book
I've seen mention of an autobio, A Backward Glance, not mentioned. Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the title of her autobiography, which I've read (in a copy borrowed from a library), so in the few edits I have done, I wasn't able refer to it even if I'd wanted to, though actually the article was (in my view) already a very well written piece and there wouldn't have been any need for me to use the autobio anyway. However, it's presumably worth mentioning in the references, and I'll get the details and add it. CWO 00:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- In fact, it was already there, as it's contained in one of the books in the references (which was the edition in which I read it), but it was not explicit. I've now made it explicit.CWO 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Expanded List of Works
Hope I didn't step on any toes, I added to the list of her published works. I also clicked through the links that exist and updated the disambiguation pages where necessary. Wtbe7560 00:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and add to the works section. Do you know how? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"The Book of the Homeless, featuring writings, art, porn, and musical scores from almost every major European artist of the day..." Uh, is that graffiti, or did she really edit porn? :-) --Tdkehoe 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Erotica is what educated people would call it. But this is Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to add an external link to a lesson plan on Edith Wharton from EDSITEment, National Endowment for the Humanities. EDSITEment is a long-standing reputable web resource for the humanities with over 400 high-quality lessons for K-12 teachers and students. EDSITEment is part of the Verizon Foundation Thinkfinity partnership along with the Smithsonian Museum of American History, National Geographic, and the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. The lesson is Edith Wharton: War Correspondent and is a great resource for background information on Wharton's involvement in the war and information on how Wharton and her book "Fighting France, From Dunkerque to Belfort" played a key role in the evolution of war correspondence. Please take a look at the lesson plan and let me know what you think about adding it to this page. Thank you.
- EDSITEment Lesson Plan: Edith Wharton: War Correspondent (from the National Endowment for the Humanities)
The section "Literary success" seems to be about everything but. What would make a better section title?
I just read a relatively recent book on Wharton: Hermione Lee, Edith Wharton, Vintage Books, London, 2007, ISBN 9780099763512, 854 p. It seems that Wharton was quite secret as to her private life and only recent evidence permits to have a better view of her life. Former biographies may be partly based on legends. The book of Hermione Lee is based on some five years of research. I find that the page gives a really unfair treatment of Wharton’s mental health. Because of a badly assorted marriage, she has been somewhat depressive at times, as everybody could be. The phrase "a toll on Wharton's mental health" is an exaggeration and gives a false image of her. Idem for "divorced in 1913, after she suffered a nervous breakdown and was confined to a hospital". (The resource from npg.si.edu uses a more moderate formulation about "in the 1890s" and not a word about a hospital around 1913. Most of the details given here are not mentioned there. The biography in the present state of the Wikipedia page is not sufficiently based on references by Wikipedia standards.) In fact the very reason for the divorce was that *he* was badly mentally ill, *he* had to spend more and more time in hospitals and became really unmanageable. She has been depressed, he died really mad, there is no comparison. My English is to poor to dare write in the page itself. (I hope it is acceptable enough for the discussion page. Sorry if by lack of nuance my critic is too sharp.) Would somebody be so kind to do Edith Wharton justice in the page? Dominique Meeùs (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tempted to delete this sentence, but maybe it's important if it can be clarified:
- Around the same time, Edith was overcome with the harsh criticisms leveled by the naturalist writers.
What does it mean? "Overcome by," maybe? And in what sense overcome; she goes on to write her major novels after this. It's unsourced too.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- I'm not sure 'overcome by' changes the sense much. The syntax is a little strange but the meaning seems clear enough. It seems she was overwhelmed by her critics for a while and then went on to write more novels. That doesn't seem strange to me and no doubt the sentence is pointing at some specific event or set of reviews. Syntax often gets a bit mangled as editors do their best to be specific while paraphrasing texts to avoid copyright vios. We can add a cn tag, if you want. I don't think it's a biggie. More research into this would, of course, help, as always. Span (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Adaptations section necessary?
Usually the film & other adaptations of a work are listed on the article about the work, not its creator. The only reason that I can think of for them to be here is that there aren't articles for all of her works. Jfmantis (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Edits for this entire page
I have to edit a wikipedia page for a class assignment. This is the page that I chosen to do. I will add more to the biography section (what she started writing and when). I also plan on fixing some discrepancies I have found about Edith Wharton's husband. I will also describe more of her writing styles to this article. At this time this is all I have found to fix, but suggestions are welcome and I will fix more as I encounter the problem(s). You may post suggestions here or on my User talk page. Awest-ENG235 (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hey @Awest-ENG235: sounds like a great project! Make sure that you include references to increase the verification of content on the page! Make sure to draw sources from academic databases like JStor and Project Muse! Sadads (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome Awest-ENG235! This article is in poor shape and any edits to it will be helpful. Generally the sourcing is poor, so looking forward to your work here. If you have questions please don't hesitate to ask. In the meantime, I've tidied up a bit to make editing around the mess easier. Victoria (tk) 23:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this page was indeed in poor shape, but it is gradually improving. Wharton deserves better. The article in its original form shows that entries for English wikipedia MUST be written only by those whose first language is English. I am a copy editor and I recognize that most of the problems here are second language errors. Regardless of the good intentions of the original writer, English is an easy language to learn and to speak at a low level, but proper, academic level written English is extremely difficult to master, and this mastery is seldom if ever achieved by a native speaker of another language. (In this case, the original author was undoubtedly working from French.)SamJohn2013 (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
My real question is, why was this article ever allowed to see print in the first place? Are Wikipedia standards so low as to allow such an article to be published without review? The work being done here is far beyond copy editing, it is a remedial course in basic writing skills, which should have been done in a school or a sandbox, not here in the published text of an important literary biography. SamJohn2013 (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Glad you could swoop in, Angel of Mercy. The talk page should be reserved for ideas on how to make the article better, not bitching about how shitty you think the article is in its present state; that's just not helpful. All best, but your comments make you sound like you're "too good" to be doing this. Maybe just make edits and leave the high-mindedness at home? Icarus of old (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, please excuse me. Having basic standards for written English and caring about whether Wikipedia should strive to maintain them is now considered "high-minded"? I assure you that my only intention has been to improve this article, to pass on my methods to others who may also care, and to stand up for one one of the greatest American writers of the twentieth century. SamJohn2013 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)