Talk:Sanditon

Cleanup?

Some thoughts:

• Should the page numbers be in here? They'll differ in every edition of the novel.
• Is the section I marked as a "plot summary" really an analysis? And since it's unsourced, is this original research? I'm not familiar enough with the work to answer that.

| Klaw ¡digame! 23:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Yes, it's not a plot summary at all - it's a critical appraisal of one very minor part of the book.

• I am reading Sanditon at the moment and am nearly done, and once I find out where the second author picked up to finish it I'll be happy to write an actual summary. 128.226.37.168 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In the last entry on the "Continuations" section, there appears >>,--Purdicles (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)<<, of which I am rather sure it shows there by mistake. Also, this entry seems to have been disrupted, or some part is simply missing at the end. Since I am no native speaker of English and very new to the project, I am unsure what to do about it. Segelohr101 (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is a definite need for cleanup. While the article is well-written, and its observations are quite thoughtful, it is clear to me that this article reads as if it were an academic essay on Sanditon rather than an encyclopedia entry.Victorianist (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Is there an error in the first line of the article? "...also known as Sand and Sandition" -- surely "Sandition" must be a misprint for Sanditon? There is no such word as sandition! 95.149.104.87 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's almost certainly spurious; I've removed it. Shimgray | talk | 14:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)