Talk:Great Expectations

Big long-term tasks

Hope everyone's well. Reread the article today and had some thoughts. Jotting them down while I remember.

• tighten the prose
• verify references support the text that cites them. Definitely a long-term project.
• use any unused references to expand the article (which were translated and copied from the French-language Wikipedia article, possibly the version that was promoted to GA or FA there)
• change the publication schedule table into a plain list
• Combine the § Novels influenced by... and § Adaptations into a § Legacy section?
• Trim and proseify § Adaptations, use proper subsection headings instead of bold (WP:PSEUDOHEAD)
• Update article with more recent literary analysis and criticism. For example, expanding on or responding to postcolonialist readings, feminist analysis, analysis through an economic lens (capitalism and its influences?).

Most of these are overarching, ongoing, long-term tasks. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 11:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a weird thing to say?

Section about pips sister after the attack;

"Mrs Joe changes and becomes kindhearted after the attack"

Does she? I think she has serious brain damage... 82.17.47.75 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Title

The title was borrowed from Philip Sidney's sonnet sequence Astrophil and Stella:

21 Your words, my firend, (right healthful caustics) blame

My young mind marr'd, whom Love doth windlass so,
That mine own writings like bad servants show
My wits, quick in vain thoughts, in virtue lame;
That Plato I read for nought, but if he tame
Such doltish gyres; that to my birth I owe
Nobler desires, lest else that friendly foe,
Great Expectation, were a train of shame.
For since mad March great promise made of me,
If now the May of my years much decline,
What can be hoped my harvest time will be?
Sure you say well, "Your wisdom's golden mine,
Dig deep with learning's spade." Now tell me this,
Hath this world aught so fair as Stella is? Eroica (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

New images added and reverted

I have again deleted the images recently added by User:Richardgrayson3451 to David Copperfield and Great Expectations:

• The images were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by User:Richardgrayson3451, and the source is shown as own work. To then add them to articles which they have been editing appears to be self-promotion and a conflict of interest.

• User:Richardgrayson3451 was requested on their talk page by User:Rwood128 to identify the source of these images, and has not responded. If the images are not their own work then, without knowing their origin, it must be assumed that they do not have permissions and should not be in WP.

Per WP:COIADVICE, if the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it is controversial. Editors should rely on talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. User:Richardgrayson3451, if you wish to restore these images, I suggest you make proposals to do so on the respective articles' talk pages so other editors can consider if these images actually improve the articles. Masato.harada (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Following Images are my own creation from AI and not stolen and belong to me. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Richardgrayson3451 I don't doubt that you are trying to improve the Dickens' article, but this isn't really doing that as far as I can see. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Masato.harada, I think we need a clear ruling as to whether or not this is self-promotion – though that seems pretty obvious to me. Rwood128 (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

what exactly do you mean my self promotion? Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Its a better portrayal of art and depiction of what AI thinks Dickens was showing.

its a second opinion. Richardgrayson3451 (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are the creator, using AI (it needs you). This is a lot of pretentious twaddle! Sorry to use unparliamentarian/unWikipedian language. Rwood128 (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are interested in pursuing this further, you can raise this matter at Wikipedia Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page>, under Commons talk:AI-generated media. Rwood128 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

the article might be phrased by AI?

While reading the article through the beginning, I couldn't help but notice the overly enthusiastic way the text is written, especially while describing the characters or receptions of the novel. It appears to me unnaturally opinionated, not neutral, unlike any remotely experienced wikipedist would write. Some of you who have read the article Artificial intelligence content detection might sympathize and relate. What do you think? Relevant or not? Majespařez (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll check the article but I would imagine that most of it was written prior to AI! Rwood128 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

(two and a half months later) I appreciate the attempt to guard against AI slop, but our hard work—including our French colleagues—doesn't sound like AI! It's AI that sounds like us. It's trained on our labour—for which we have received not a drop of thanks (nor any attribution). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)