Talk:The Great Gatsby/Archive 2

Incubated article for planned film adaptation

I created an incubated article for Baz Luhrmann's planned film adaptation; it can be seen at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/The Great Gatsby (2012 film). Per the notability guidelines for future films, the article should be created in the mainspace if filming begins. In the meantime, feel free to use sources from the incubated article to provide in this article a brief summary of this possible film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No "copyrights" section?

There has been no section of "Copyright Status", and the link to the e-Book Project Gutenberg Australia must have proven the book's public domain status in Australia. In the United States, this book was first published in 1925, is probably still currently copyrighted under renewals, and will enter the public domain in 2020, according to the Copyright Center Information of Cornell University. --Gh87 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

But F. Scott Fitzgerald died in 1940, so he must be out of copyright now. Death + 70years = 2010, so out in 2011. MidlandLinda (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You would have thought so but — in the US at least — it's not due to enter the public domain until the 1st January 2021. The 2020/2021 distinction will be because it'll be the first day of a new year after 95 years have passed since publication. I can't claim to know much about its status in other countries, but coverage on the BBC's Today Programme last year (for which I can't find a link) claimed that Gatz (a UK theatre production) was possible because the original work had entered the public domain. Alexsdutton (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it really a organized crime novel?

I don't think this should go in the organized crime novels category. Gatsby's connections to the mob are only hinted at in the text. --Zach (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and what's more, they're not really a primary part of the plot. 144.173.5.196 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

TGG is not an organized crime novel. I've removed the cat. --Seduisant (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thirded. Organized crime is a part of the novel but the novel isn't about organized crime in any direct, purposed way. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline hard to believe

"With The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald made a conscious departure from the writing process of his previous novels. He started planning it in June 1911..."

I find this hard to believe. He started planning a novel about the Roaring Twenties in 1911? Of course subjects and their inspirations can change, but historically 1911 and 1922 are like night and day. It's sort of like saying someone started planning a novel about World War II in 1914. Plus, Fitzgerald was ridiculously young then. Are you sure the correct year isn't 1921? 67.180.44.133 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could locate some biographical/critical TGG/Fitzgerald sources and look it up. --Seduisant (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Adaptations

There have been a number of ballet adaptations including ones by The Washington Ballet and Atlanta Ballet. Northern Ballet (who I work for) have a new adaptation premièring in 2013.

PhillUpNorth (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)PhillUpNorth

WP:IPC. Third-party sources should be provided to firmly establish that the adaptations are considered significant in some manner. Doniago (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

under Books a new adaptation was just published by Seven Stories Press, an artistic adaptation by American cartoonist, and graphic designer, Tara Seibel and edited by American author Russ Kick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protege1939 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

PLOT SUMMARY EDIT?

Hi, As students studying this book, we discussed in class how Daisy's affair ends when Tom reveals that Gatsby was involved in murder with Wolfsheim. Gatsby assumes an expression previously described as "as if he had killed a man," and Daisy withdraws from him for the rest of the book. I feel like this event is the turning point in the plot, when Gatsby looses Daisy forever. If there is space, maybe we can put it in? P.S. I probably won't be able to answer any replies to this comment, sorry for any inconvience.--75.32.145.102 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding what should be put into an article. On of the most important is No original research. This means that before you add a sentence containing some information, that information should be verifiable in reliable sources. The links I have provided explain all these in detail. I will also post on your "talk page" some information to help new editors understand how things work. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Three Nits to Pick

Some observations about problems in the article, although I'm not sufficiently certain of how to fix them. Perhaps another editor might take whack:

First, the plot summary describing the pivotal scene at the hotel suggests that Daisy can't choose between Tom and Gatsby. The confusion is compounded by the observation that she leaves with Gatsby. I think it's clear from the book that by refusing to choose, she is essentially deciding to stay with Tom. Perhaps a tweak is in order?

Second, the description of the funeral is somewhat misleading. It says none of Gatsby's "friends" attends. But of course the whole point is that Gatsby didn't turn out to have any friends, other than Nick. Furthermore, Owl Eyes does show up at the cemetery.

Finally, the list of characters describes Pammy as a "corrupted child." What on earth is a corrupted child? Can anyone think of a better way to describe little Pammy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafong (talk • contribs) 06:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Although I can see it that way, I don't necessarily agree with your first point. Looks like the funeral text is better now than it was... might tweak it a bit to be more accurate. I agree with your third point. I don't remember anything that would directly suggest she was "corrupted". Jason Quinn (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

1/11/2013 I can't believe what I am reading

Resolved

I am actually a bit horrified to see so many quotes and references about basic facts in the very first paragraph. I expect an encyclopedic article would define it in a straightforward, clear, objective, and direct manner. What I find is a paragraph that makes it hard to understand what it is. It is a 1925 novel by American author F.Scott Fitzgerald, certainly considered an important and influential work, etc. The problem in the paragraph is that it sounds as if someone new to the novel is trying to sing its praises without having read it during a class presentation. No offense, sincerely. Please, someone revise this because The Great Gatsby is one of those novels that are sacred to some people, myself included, which is why I cannot contribute at the moment neutrally or otherwise. Somebody who is calm, please help. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Policarpasalavarrieta (talk • contribs) 18:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I've revised the lead paragraph to be much more concise and avoid using all the quotes, which really don't belong there. It could probably use a bit of further improvement, but I think I've left it far better than it was. -- Fyrefly (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been resolved thanks to the efforts of Fyrael and others. Marking as such. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot Inaccuracies

Resolved

I am unsure if the plot description is based on a film or what, but "Owl-Eyes tells Nick that his dead friend was a poor boy from North Dakota, whose real name was James Gatz." is not something that happens in the novel at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.198.217 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake: it's the "Owl-Eyes telling Nick" part that doesn't appear in the novel. "James Gatz" is Gatsby's real name and he was originally from North Dakota (5th paragraph, Chapter 6). The sentence objected to is no longer in the article anyhow. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The American Peasant?

Resolved

What on earth is this part on about? Who was writing about "the American Peasant", and what does a book written in 1925 have to do with the Great Depression? john k (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I tracked the sentence's origin to this fairly recent edit. It does seem to be anachronistic. Unfortunately, I can't view the referenced page through Google Books so I can't read it for context. But, yeah, criticizing Fitzgerald for not writing for a 1930's audience in a 1925 book is just, well, silly. Perhaps the sentence is just not well written. I'll contact the editor that added it to see what insight they can provide. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The whole claim is just kind of puzzling. Did Fitzgerald's earlier books, which sold better, deal with "the American peasant"? Is there any real basis to say that the way to sell books in the 20s was to write about "the American peasant"? It just seems like a very strange thing to say. The claim is sourced to Mizener's autobiography of Fitzgerald. I suppose someone could look that up. john k (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "peasant" was removed by User:Treplag during reworking of the "Reception" section starting with this edit on 8 May 2013. I think it resolved your valid concern, User:John K, so I am marking this as resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

thesis!

The intro badly needs a one-sentence synopsis of the plot. I've never read the book, and the PLOT section was so detail-intensive that I really couldn't glean the basics from it, or I would have done it myself. Somebody help who's read this book! Remember...wordy and correct is easy to write, simple and understandable is much harder to do - but worth it! Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Thardin12 has improved the lead to the article in a way that may have satisfied your concerns. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

MUCH better! Thanks Thardin12!! Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Book was published later?

Resolved

From clicking around here on The Internet I get the firm impression that "The Great Gatsby" was first published in 1925, not 1922.

Indeed, there was no "Roaring 20s" in 1922 because the United States was in the grip of a very, very bad recession; the Roaring 20s didn't start until the recession ended in the spring of 1923 and the economy really started to take off by the end of that year. Satchmo Sings (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The novel was published in 1925. The story takes place in 1922: "Father agreed to finance me for a year, and after various delays I came East, permanently, I thought, in the spring of twenty-two." (Chapter 1) Unfortunately, I didn't quite see what in the article on 30 April 2013 prompted your comment. You may be right about the Roaring Twenties not really kicking in until 1923. I don't really know. A glance at that article suggests that it started in the cities first so maybe in 1922 cities like New York were ahead of the curve. Whether or not the novel depicts the Roaring Twenties or merely the lifestyles of the fabulously wealthy just prior (or if the novel is simply just historically inaccurate) is a good question that could be raised in another thread. As the main point of your comment is now addressed in the article, I am going to mark it as resolved. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Gave a 3-month semi-protection

This page has been popping up in my watchlist over and over. I have just done a quick check of unique IP edits since May 1st. Roughly they categorize in my estimation as: 7 good edits, 6 neutral quality edits, 2 good faith but poor edits, 11 vandalism edits. In other words, out of 26 edits, only 7 were obvious improvements to the article. This article readership has been increasing due to the upcoming release of a new movie. I expect that the release itself will generate a further increase in readers and an even higher IP vandalism rate than presently. This page has 219 watchers but continual edits cause watchlist fatigue and can let vandalism slip through. Given the high vandalism rate, I have semi-protected the article for 3 months. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Irises one yard high

Has this been discussed before? The description of yard high "irises"? As I understand it, Fitzgerald made a mistake and wrote "retinas". I am sure that there is a reason why the text of this article makes the silent correction to "irises". But shouldn't there at least be a warning comment not to change it back to "retinas"? Have I missed something? Or am I mistaken (it's been many years since it last read The Great Gatsby)? TomS TDotO (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The phrasing under discussion occurs in the second paragraph of Chapter II. My copy, which is I think the 64th printing of the 1950 edition from Penguin Books (ISBN 0-14-027413-8), uses the word "retinas". This online edition, for instance, uses the word "irises". There may be different versions floating around. I don't know why or how the change occurred or when. It would likely make for an interesting footnote in the article if we find out. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The essays "Getting It Wrong: Resetting The Great Gatsby" (2005) and "Getting It Right: The Publishing Process and the Correction of Factual Errors — with Reference to The Great Gatsby" (1994) by Mathew J. Bruccoli do discuss this exact point in detail. From the latter we have the following paragraph (which inlcudes typographical issues from the source):

“ External errors include details that are wrong without reference to the work of fiction. The textual editor has the responsibility to emend obvious factual blunders that can be corrected by simple substitution. The oculist’s billboard in Gatsby’s valley of ashes was presumably invented, but Fitzgerald’s description includes a correctable error: “The eyes of Doctor T. J. Eckleburg are blue and gigantic–their retinas are one yard high.” Impossibleòthe retina is at the back of the eye. Fitzgerald meant pupils or irisesòprobably irises. It has been objected that emendation here is improper because the editor is required to decide between two possible correctionsòpupils or irises. Surely the selection of either correct reading is preferable to perpetuating a distracting error. It has also been claimed that since the novel is narrated by Nick Carraway, this and other factual errors characterize him and bear on the question of his reliability. According to this perverse argument, some of Nick’s errors may have been deliberately planted by Fitzgerald and should therefore be retained. Even so, it is impossible to explain why Nick’s misuse of retinas would have been meaningfully intended by Fitzgerald. The claim that the author liked the sound of retinas is unsatisfactory. ”

Here is a mostly complete explanation of the situation. It seems as if that "irises" is considered a proper editor fix even if Fitzgerald himself used the word "retinas". My 1950 edition was based on the "1926" edition (I think they meant "1925" actually), and likely included the word "retinas" for that reason. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If we're concerned about anatomical precision, then I'd note that "irises" can be blue, but not "pupils", so that is the only possible correction. Aside from that, what are we to do? Are we to correct the original text, on the basis of this expert opinion? To me, this is indistinguishable from bowdlerism, but my opinion is not worth much. I'd at least suggest that we put a comment available to prospective editors that they should not change whatever decision has been reached. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the most sensible thing to do is add another footnote to the article, similar to the one that already exists for "Wolfshiem". That seems to also be a post-first edition editorial change. Perhaps, a footnote that says "The original edition used the anatomically-incorrect word 'retinas', while some later editions have used the word 'irises'." would be best. I'm not totally sure who first made the correction but from Brocculi's essays it seems as if a Cambridge University Press editor may have. I'd be hesitant to make a footnote that I was not 100% sure about hence the fairly weak wording I suggest. What do you think? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013

Please change "adaptions" to "adaptations" in the following paragraph:

First published by Scribner's in April 1925, The Great Gatsby received mixed reviews and sold poorly; in its first year, the book only sold 20,000 copies. Fitzgerald died in 1940, believing himself to be a failure and his work forgotten. His work, spearheaded by The Great Gatsby, experienced a revival during World War II, and the novel became a part of high school curriculum in the following decades. The book has remained popular since, leading to numerous stage and film adaptions. The Great Gatsby is widely considered to be a literary classic and a contender for the title "Great American Novel". The book is consistently ranked among the greatest works of American literature and of all-time.

Mswiatelko (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Repeated information

In the section 'Legacy and Modern Analysis' the information about the book's distribution to US forces is repeated in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. 86.128.241.188 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right. This still could use some re-wording. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox disappearance

I decided to browse back to this article on a whim, and I noticed that the infobox for this article has been removed and replaced with an image description of the original image in the infobox instead, as noted in Revision as of 19:44, 10 May 2013.

I'm curious as to why it was removed and replaced, especially when considering the other articles for Gatsby's other novels, which still have their infoboxes intact. 99.73.166.107 (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2013

In the section "Myrtle Wilson", the Wikipedia page states, "She is accidentally killed after being hit by a car driven by Daisy, though Gatsby takes the blame for it.". Howevver, it is Tom Buchanan who takes the blame, not Gatsby. 122.111.224.224 (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Gatsby says that he himself will take the blame. I'm not sure what lead you to believe otherwise. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ready for GA review?

Should we submit this article for another go at GA status? The article seems to be in good enough shape. It's well-referenced and very useful. I suppose it's not FA quality yet but perhaps GA. One issue I see is that we have an over-reliance on the Mizener 1960 reference. Reading the previous GA archive suggests there lots of books on this novel so we should actively try to diversify. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Adaptations vs Influences

I intend to split the "Adaptations" sections into "Adaptations" and and new "Influences". Some of the items currently given are clearly not adaptations of the Great Gatsby but merely influences or references. Some or all the items to be moved to Influences will be viewed with skepticism regarding their inclusion in the article in the first place as per WP:TRIVIA. Please comment if you see any problems with this. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else want to comment on this? Your input would be appreciated. This section I believe is the weakest in the article, partly because no consensus had been made about what deserves to be there. As it stands, there is a mixture of true adaptations, inspired but non-adaptive works, and merely referential material. Should cull some of it and be somewhat strict about what is allowed? Or perhaps create a new article about adaptations and influences? I think culling may be the best route. My suggestion would be to only include adaptations. Inspired works like imagined sequels by other authors should not be listed, nor should trivia-like items like songs that mention the Great Gatsby, etc. Your thoughts? Jason Quinn (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Trim away. At the very least, things need to be sourced. For example, Bodega Dreams is currently listed as an adaptation. I can find a source that compares the themes of Bodega Dreams to Gatsby, but nothing that says it is an outright adaptation. And as far as influences, that list should be kept to only highly notable entries; Wikipedia not being a directory and all. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

why was Nicholas "Nick" Carras in an insane asylum or what ever it was ...thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.146.37 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 May 2013‎ (UTC)

The character's name is Nick Carraway, and yes he was. Hot Stop 02:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

@24.18.146.37 This is the talk page for the book, not the 2013 film. The insane asylum aspect was an invented framing device by the script writer or editors, which does not appear in the book. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 June 2013

The following line in the entry for The Great Gatsby, Reception, should read "in" instead of "of" the Chicago Tribune. Mencken was of Baltimore. Balt. Sun. American Mercury. Published in many places, but was OF Baltimore. Not Chicago. Didn't work for the Trib. H.L. Mencken OF SHLD BE IN The Chicago Daily Tribune called the book "in form no more than a glorified anecdote, and not too probable at that," while praising the book's "careful and brilliant finish."[41] See Wiki entry on Mencken. Small matter, but it threw me off: of the Trib? I thought... etc. Did some research. Verified he published the review in the Trib, but worked in Balt for Balt-based pubs. Twkell (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit per your suggestion, which is, in any case, neutral wording. Thank you for pointing it out. Begoon ^talk 02:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 June 2013

To add to the Music section under "Adaptations":

In February 2013, the band The Glorious Veins released a song entitled "From The Desk" on their album, Savage Beat. The song is written from Jay Gatsby's perspective, singing to Daisy. Link for ref: http://thegloriousveins.bandcamp.com/track/from-the-desk

Of course, if the "Influences" section is created, this would be a more suitable place.

Lachlanroy (talk) 13:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a different source that has made note of this? When we include pop culture references we should generally include a source establishing that it's significant in some manner. WP:IPC discusses this in more detail. Doniago (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Against Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). As you note, the song is not an adaptation of the book but inspired by it. Plus, neither the song, the album, nor the band (!) have an article. How does this song pass notability then (WP:N)? Including this information in the article, at best, seems like including trivia, which we don't really want (WP:TRIVIA). Jason Quinn (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jordan Baker's name

I've been trying to find sources for the statement about Jordan Baker's name being a combination of the Jordan Motor Car Company and Baker Motor Vehicle. It took a lot of searching to make progress but I finally made a breakthough. I have added three sources to the statement. One is a perfectly good source by Bruccoli and the two others give references to sources that support the statement, which are:

• (book) Mathew J. Bruccoli, A Note on Jordan Baker Fitzgerald/Hemmingway Annual (1970), 232–33 (ASIN: B001RJY9PK)
• (journal) Laurence E. MacPhee "The Great Gatsby's 'Romance of Motoring': Nick Carraway and Jordon Baker" Modern fiction studies., Vol. 18, No. 2 (1972), p. 207
• (journal) R. A. Corrigan "Somewhere West of Laramie, on the Road to West Egg: Automobiles, Fillies, and the West in The Great Gatsby" The Journal of Popular Culture. Volume 7, Issue 1, pages 152–158, Summer 1973

I have yet to see Brucolli's book and the journal articles seem to be behind paywalls. These sources are verfied to my satisfaction but it'd be great to have exact quotes from them to replace or improve the current refs. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

PS There's only one "citation needed" left. I will either source or delete that statement and then submit this article for good article (WP:GA) review. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 July 2013

Please add under Adaptation Section/Books a new adaptation was published by Seven Stories Press, "The Graphic Canon Volume 3" an illustrated artistic adaptation by American cartoonist, and graphic designer, Tara Seibel and edited by American author Russ Kick ISBN:9781609803803, "Tara Seibel, the only female artist involved with the Harvey Pekar Project, turns in an exquisite series of illustrations for The Great Gatsby." http://catalog.sevenstories.com/products/graphic-canon-volume-3,Protege1939 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC) Protege1939 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added the entry. This wasn't clear to me if it should be added. At the present there's no litmus test to decide and I think the editors should err on the conservative side. Presently this section has been going through contraction rather than expansion. I had to consider if this work qualifies as an "adaptation" or as inspired original work. Quickly I decided that perhaps they are not mutually exclusive and it counts as both. I also had to decide if it was notable enough. Let's face it: every work published even tangentially-related to The Great Gatsby would want to be here but not every work is worthy of inclusion. The book appears to be doing quite well and I easily found many sources that suggest it is a book making waves. The biggest question though was if mentioning it in the article gives it undue weight. I'm not totally sure but it seems more worthy than a couple of entries at the present so I went ahead and added it. This whole section though may go through a serious trimming at some point in the future, or perhaps get split off into a separate list article. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Disc Wheel (talk · contribs) 04:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall good work my man well written. Just some minor, and I do mean minor, things need fixing. I did make like one or two tiny copyedits.

General

• "On March 19, Fitzgerald asked if the book could be renamed Under the Red, White and Blue but it was at that stage too late to change."

March of what year?

 Done The year is 1925, right before publication. I've beefed up that entire sentence with a couple more refs to boot. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Great Gatsby, a graphic novel adaptation by Australian cartoonist Nicki Greenberg"
• "Daisy Buchanan's Daughter (2011) by Tom Carson is the purported autobiography of Tom and Daisy Buchanan's daughter"

Punctuation at the end for these two

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe the period should go inside the quotations for the following:

• "Great American Novel".
• "cautionary tale of the decadent downside of the American dream".
• "the title is only fair, rather bad than good".
• "so dumb he doesn't know he's alive".
• "autumn-leaf yellow hair",
• "consciously artistic achievement",

 Partly done need more discussion. See new section below. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Images

• The image captions for the multiple image ones (that talks about the inspiration for Gatsby's house) the information in the caption is not mentioned in the section where the images are found and that goes against this Wikipedia guideline [Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images]. So I'd remove the citations from the images and then just mention the facts in the prose next to the image with the refs from the images now, if that makes any sense.

 Done Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Make sure the punctuation in the captions for all the images is consistent. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 23:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:CAPTION. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Refs needed

References are needed after the following sentences:

• "He began planning his third novel in June 1922,[3] but planning was interrupted by production of his play The Vegetable in the summer and fall."

Nutshell Not sure this is actually true. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After googling " production of his play The Vegetable fitzgerald" - I found this NYTimes article that I believe proves it true. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. Good find. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Fitzgeralds then moved to Rome for the winter."

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Fitzgerald made revisions through the winter after Perkins informed him that the novel was too vague and Gatsby's biographical section too long."

 Done Changed the sentence to accurately reflect what Perkins said. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Unlike his previous works, Fitzgerald intended to edit and reshape Gatsby thoroughly, believing that it held the potential to launch him toward literary acclaim."

Nutshell I'm struggling to find a source for this. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you check refs #26 and #27 for possible mentions of what the sentence discusses? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

B Done I have reworked the section that this appeared in and removed it in the process. The section had a more confusing chronological structure than it does now. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "A little-known artist named Francis Cugat was commissioned to illustrate the book while Fitzgerald was in the midst of writing it."

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Fitzgerald's remarks about incorporating the painting into the novel led to the interpretation that the eyes are reminiscent of those of fictional optometrist Dr. T. J. Eckleburg (depicted on a faded commercial billboard near George Wilson's auto repair shop) which Fitzgerald described as "blue and gigantic — their retinas[note 2] are one yard high."

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "On November 7, 1924, Fitzgerald wrote to Perkins that "I have now decided to stick to the title I put on the book ... Trimalchio in West Egg" but was eventually persuaded that the reference was too obscure and that people would not be able to pronounce it."

 Partly done Only found source for the pronunciation part. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After just googling "Fitzgerald" and the "I have now decided to stick to the title I put on the book" part, I found this to a google book that would be a RS. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I see this has been fixed now, so I'm passing. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yep.. was writing out this explanation when you noticed it: I did however weaken the date from "November 7, 1924" to "November of 1924". I have found numerous sources that seem to indicate the date of this letter is only approximately known as 7 November 1924. The Cambridge University Press edition says on p. 209 of Appendix 3 that the letter is "undated". Page 331 of the "Text 14: An Interdisciplinary Annual of Textual Studies" says "early November" and "ca. 7 November 1924" (in footnote 14). It gives the "Dear Scott/Dear Max" p. 81-82 as a source for that. "The American Mystery: American Literature from Emerson to DeLillo" by Tony Tanner on p. 166 also says "circa 7 November 1924". Many other works also suggest it's an approximate date, which means our previous wording was over-exact and in error. The current wording of the article now just specifies "November" and seems adequate for our purposes. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Early drafts of the novel entitled Trimalchio: An Early Version of The Great Gatsby have been published."

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Others, like journalist Nick Gillespie, see The Great Gatsby as a story "about the breakdown of class differences in the face of a modern economy based not on status and inherited position but on innovation and an ability to meet ever-changing consumer needs.""

 Question: This entire paragraph can actually be sourced to the single citation already at the end of the paragraph (Gillespie's article in Reason). Do each of these sentences need to be individually cited or can we just leave the one citation at the end? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done per below. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• "As Gillespie states, "While the specific terms of the equation are always changing, it's easy to see echoes of Gatsby's basic conflict between established sources of economic and cultural power and upstarts in virtually all aspects of American society." "

 Question: See above; this may already be covered. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally like to have it all sourced rather than have a person go to the page and delete some of the information because the first few sentences were not source but the last one was. You see what I'm saying? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I thought there was something in WP:REF that covered this but I couldn't find anything, so... the refs are now added. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The Great Gatsby has sold over 25 million copies worldwide."

 Done Jason Quinn (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The purpose of the Council was to distribute paperback books to soldiers fighting in the Second World War. The Great Gatsby was one of these books. The books proved to be "as popular as pin-up girls" among the soldiers, according to the Saturday Evening Post's contemporary report."

 Done Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Book Refs

You have partially cited the books correctly. You need to list all the books (including google books) down under the Bibliography heading, even if you use it just once to source some material. For example, currently ref #17 and #18 are done properly (using the < ref>Authorlastname & year, pp. pagenumber</ref>); however, you don't have refs like #22, #21, and more done like that. That make sense? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Question: Could you post some quotes and links to the sections of MOS you are referring to (e.g., from WP:FNNR, Help:Footnotes, Help:Shortened footnotes, Wikipedia:Citing sources)? I haven't found where it says that current version of referencing in the articles is disallowed. Rather than converting the article to a fully shortened footnote style, I would do the opposite and convert it to use all full references (much easier!). But I actually think the current way is optimal and may be permissible by the guidelines. Even if it isn't, I may argue that it's best to keep it as is. I'll wait for follow-up before explaining that angle. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) PS I have found on the FA criteria where it mentions (2c) about using only inline refs or parenthetical refs. I agree completely that mixing those two styles is generally bad, however this article does not use parenthetical refs, only inline refs and shortened footnotes, which is different. Lastly, it seems that stringent conformance of referencing may be a FA criteria, and perhaps not a GA criteria. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I think that is acceptable since this is GA. So nevermind there. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hi, User:Disc Wheel. I'll start working on the things you mention to try to bring the article up to snuff. Thank you for your review and your suggestions. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Quotes and punctuation

I have changed some of the punctuation used near quotes as suggested above but not all. In fact, I'm not sure what is best and will need to read more MOS for some of the cases. Wikipedia does use Wikipedia:Logical_quotation, so I used that for direct quotes. Many of the items in the article surrounded by quotes marks are not actual quotes however but figures of speech (such a "Great American Novel") or self-referencing items like when the words "retinas" and "irises" were used. Such items function as a unit and should not be contaminated so-to-speak by punctuation. This is for some the same reasons that motivate logical quotation, such as better searches through copy-n-paste, etc. I will study-up the MOS but I surpringlysurprisingly have mostly only found advise relating to actual quotes. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I just remember my english teachers saying that the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks... Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 04:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The situation is more complicated than this. There's a disparity between American and British usage of punctuation in quotations. The British tend to use "logical punctuation", while Americans tend to write as you suggest. At Wikipedia, however, the logical punctuation is used (MOS:LQ). Interestingly, I recall reading about a study that shows Americans are also moving towards logical quotation as well and that suggested that logical punctuation's better suitability for electronic communication was the cause. (I am American but a strong proponent of logical punctuation for this reason.) As per MOS:LQ, I have put the punctuation inside when it is part of the actual quote, but i have left the punctuation outside if there's no direct punctuation being quoted, or when quotes are used to isolate parts of speech. I checked and changed the article to make sure it's consistent (at least under my interpretation of things). Jason Quinn (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay that's fine with me then. Now that just leaves the partly done correction about Fitzgerald talking to Perkins and this is GA my boy. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Passing

Pass I'm passing the article after the nominator and one other editor fixed all the issues I outlined. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Thank you for your very careful initial review and very helpful work during the process, User:Disc Wheel. I look forward to editting with you again in the future. Regarding Gatsby-related things, the new Luhrmann Gatsby movie will be released in home formats on August 27. I expect a bump in traffic around then. It'd be really cool to get this to FA status before then. I don't know if I'll have the energy to get it there before the August 27 date though. We'll see. It would be great to get a well-timed front page article though. Thanks again for all your valuable feedback. Also, thank you to Orange Suede Sofa, whose input and collaboration was very valuable and friendly. Jason Quinn (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why the relentless praise

There are books for all people but this one seems to receive relentless praise from educators until this day. I wonder if a section on the books appeal might be added to explain this. Personally, I find the story a bit boring and I don't see it appealing to high school students. It appears more to be a matter of obsessive teachers stuffing it down their throats. 101.51.135.193 (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can answer the question "Why is The Great Gatsby (or any book) so popular?" definitively so a section devoted to it seems undesirable. If writers and publishers knew the answers to such things, they'd never release unpopular books. The best that can be done is to rely on published reviews, critiques, articles that explore the book's qualities, which is exactly what the "Reception" and "Legacy and modern analysis" try to do. This could always be done better, so if you want to find more information in reliable sources to add, please do; however, remember to be objective and encyclopedic with your additions. Also know that there is no original research at Wikipedia so personal opinions cannot be used in the articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Tom kills Gatsby?

In the plot summary, it specifies that Tom kills Gatsby and then himself. Wasn't it George? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.26.37 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. The relevant sentence says, "George, who had leapt to the conclusion that the driver of the car that killed Myrtle must have been her lover, Tom, tracks Gatsby to his mansion and fatally shoots both Gatsby and then himself." I don't know if you are the same person that edited the article to change this the other day but when you read the whole sentence, it's clear that it is saying that George, not Tom, shoots Gatsby. Your alternative interpretation is excluded by the sentence's grammar, is it not? Perhaps the sentence might be better written without "Tom" surrounded by commas, so that it reads, "George, who had leapt to the conclusion that the driver of the car that killed Myrtle must have been her lover Tom, tracks Gatsby to his mansion and fatally shoots both Gatsby and then himself." Jason Quinn (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

There was something wrong with the word "Tom" here. In the context of the whole paragraph, "her lover" is not referring to the actual lover, Tom, but to Gatsby whom George mistakenly thinks is Myrtle's lover. I corrected the mistake by removing ", Tom," from the article but then I noticed that there was a big mistake in the plot summary. It was saying that Tom tells George that Gatsby killed Mrytle. That's not true. In the book, George decides this himself, although in some of the movies, like the recent one, Tom does tell George this. Anyway, I changed the whole last paragraph to be more accurate to the book. 96.231.210.56 (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The edits by 96.231.210.56 are mine. I didn't realize my log-in had expired. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)