Talk:A Wrinkle in Time

"Plot Summary" missing where and when the adventure begins
Based on the movie ads on TV, it could be circa-1960 suburban America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDAD:9320:B905:1514:8715:A5DB (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this page needs a spoiler warning. About the same information is available on the back cover of the book. - Sporks of Mass Destruction


 * Those of us who don't read the back covers of books due to fear of spoilers disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDAD:9320:B905:1514:8715:A5DB (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia discourages the use of spoiler warnings, per Spoiler and No_disclaimers_in_articles. You can't go to an encyclopedia page whose topic is a book and expect not to be spoiled. You can avoid reading the "Plot Summary" section if you want; there's no way to summarize a plot without spoilers. --Schoolmann (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Charles Wallace?
Why is he not listed as a character anywhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.176.82.2 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
 * That was the result of a vandal edit. It has since been fixed. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned book info
According to the wikipedia page on banned books, wrinkle is on the American Library Association List of banned books. does anyone know why? if so, it might make for an interesting addition to the article Shaggorama 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mostly due to its controversial religious content, but also its depiction of kids in danger. -05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read (somewhere - haven't found sources to cite) of objections to "witches" and "fortune-telling" by people who don't realize that the Mrs. Ws aren't witches and that the Happy Medium is not a fortune teller per se. I've written about this on my L'Engle FAQ page. A more specific account of challenges to the book can be found at Forbidden Library. Karen 21:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ^ These people are exacly right.The book 'supposedly' had witch-craft,which is totally NOT true...--- K e l s i e . &amp; a d o r e s ; . Y o u  

Note on a revert
Explaining my revert here: claim that "Mrs. Whatsit is the leader of the Mrs. W's" is unsubstantiated by the text. Although Mrs. Whatsit is the one who deals most closely with the children, there's a clear implication in the book that she has less authority than Mrs. Which, whom the others respect as eldest and pssibly wisest. Mrs. Whatsit is relatively young, and defers to Mrs. Which's authority. Karen 09:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Book covers, book order
I don't know if anybody has a use for it just yet, but here's a picture of the cover in arabic (click to enlarge) from a page at the US Embassy in Egypt. Also included in the page there is a link to an arabic review of the book. Both of these might be helpful should someone care to make an article for the book on that wiki. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Question on the image: I asked Bantam-Doubleday-Dell years ago for permission to depict Dell book covers on my L'Engle site, and their lawyers said no because of copyright issues. Is depiction of the hardback cover here okay with FS&G? I almost uploaded a photo I took of my copy of the rare L'Engle book Ilsa, but shied away because of the rights of the publisher (The Vanguard Press, which apparently doesn't exist anymore) and artist (identified only as "leslie"). Am I being over-careful? Karen 21:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

One more item while I'm thinking about it. Many Waters takes place before A Swiftly Tilting Planet, despite its later publication date. Cf. my page on The Novels of Madeleine L'Engle for a chronological reading list. Karen 22:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

weird...my brother got me that book with the same cover for christmas...its arabic?--Stephenharper321 (talk) 01:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Request
On the charaters part they really need too add the rest especially The Man With Red Eyes and IT.


 * They have IT now.

71.72.82.183 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

1960s Dust jacket
I've uploaded this cover from the book's eleventh printing (1965), since it almost certainly has the same cover art as the first edition, other than the addition of the Newbery Medal. Should it replace the current cover in the infobox? I was unsure, so I'm putting it here for now.

Oh, and I just added section headings to this page for readability. I hope that's okay! Karen 05:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The cover image has been removed from here, but that's fine; it's now in the article itself. The Arabic one above needs to either be in the article with a fair use rationale, or else removed. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 05:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Meg and Charles Wallace
In an edit dated 16:26, 10 August 2006, User:68.193.186.111 wrote:

"As the story goes on, Meg notices that Charles Wallace is not like her, or her family, but he is special."

I've reverted this because a) it doesn't really belong in a brief character sketch about Meg herself, b) the point about Charles Wallace is made elsewhere on the page, and c) it's not an accurate statement. It is clear from Meg's musings from the opening pages of the book that she is already aware how special Charles Wallace is, that he's smart, and that he can "read" her, etc. Meg learns more in the course of the story, but it's not something she's just now noticing.

Please don't be discouraged, though, Suzanne! Welcome to Wikipedia! Karen | Talk | contribs 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving this from a user page as suggested:

Hi. In all my research, I've never seen a reference to a 1983 video or movie of A Wrinkle in Time, and L'Engle has written about why she didn't allow one to be made (until the recent one, of course). What is your source on this? Can you give me more information? Karen | Talk | contribs 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My source is that I have the movie. Wouldn't this have been better put on the Wrinkle in Time Talk page, rather than my User page? Banaticus 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm willing to be convinced that this video exists.  However, if it's going to be mentioned here, there should be some source or publication info - company, director, writers, actors, producers, something. For example, off the top of my head: "This direct-to-video release was directed by Jim Director, starred Maisy Jones as Meg, and was distributed to schools by School Library Stuff, Inc." For that matter, I'd love to see someone come up with solid publication date on audio adaptatons for schools in the 1960s and 1970s.  I'm pretty sure there was at least one. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I spotted a DVD copy of the 1983 version at my local library. Mangomamafl (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Changes to the "character" section
I'm changing the order in which the characters are listed. Before my edit, the three Mrs. Ws were listed first, which is illogical; they are supporting characters, not primary ones, and only appear in this novel. However, since they are more important than Sandy & Dennys, I have broken the character section into 3 parts: "Major human characters," "Major immortal characters," and "Supporting human characters." The first group comprises Meg, Charles, & Calvin; the second, the three Mrs. Ws; and the third, the remaining O'Keefes. I also plan to note that the parents' first names are never given in the novel and to observe that Meg is both the protagonist and the viewpoint character.

Fabulous Creature 03:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing a bit of the section on Mrs Whatsit to remove the claim that all three of the Mrs Ws were former stars. Only Mrs Whatsit is explicitly named as such in the story. Fabulous Creature 00:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice job on this. You're right: Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin should be listed first.  However, I'm wondering whether it might be better to have just two character categories: "major" (Meg, Charles Wallace, Calvin, and then Whatsit & Co) and supporting. The human/nonhuman distinction strikes me as a little odd somehow. By now you probably realize that the first name issue on the parents is already mentioned. And yes, although it's kind of implied that Who and Which are of a kind with Whatsit ("It was not so long ago for you, was it?"), we don't know for certain that they were also stars that sacrificed themselves. Karen | Talk | contribs 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Meg's age
I'm going to want to go through the book yet again to be certain, but I'm 95% sure Meg's age is not given in Wrinkle, although it might be in a publisher's plot description. Calvin's age is given as 14, and he is "a couple of years ahead" of Meg in grade, putting her in 9th grade. Ninth graders are generally fourteen years old in the autumn, so she is probably 14, the same as Calvin. Unless L'Engle or her publisher has specifically stated this somewhere, it is not a certainty. Still, I suppose 14 is a plausible number to use in the article, if any. Karen | Talk | contribs 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

My view on this is that 11th graders are usually 16 years old, making Meg 14.--Stephenharper321 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Fourteen seems likely, but is not definite. Yet people keep trying to nail down her age here was 14, 13, or even 12! I have a vague idea that her age as an adult is mentioned in one of the books about Polly, but even if I find this and we count back, it's not going to result in a definitive age as of the events of this book.--!!!!

Meg says in the book that Calvin is about a year older than her and a couple of grades above her. I have the changes in the character section to show this 67.137.114.54 (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Calvin's age / grade
Article says that Calvin is 14 years old and a junior in high school. If he's 14, he might possibly be a high school freshman, or in the last year of middle school ("junior high school", at the time), but he wouldn't be a high school junior unless he had skipped a couple of grades. High school juniors are more typically 16; occasionally 17.

Also, description of Charles Wallace is lacking. No mention of the fact that he is extremely precocious, possibly a prodigy of some sort -- both of which are rather important to the plot.

IT?
In the original article, they should mention IT. IT is the evil character, possibly main. This should be reviewed.IT was very Inportant!

Nycgirl101

Am I the only one?
I felt like there was something wrong with me that this was an award winning book, and I could not see any redeeming value in it. Now I am much older, and have the benefit of wisdom and a broader perspective and I still think that this is a very dry and boring book. Is there something I am missing here? 72.225.36.158 02:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, I liked it, although now that i think about it...you may have a point.--Stephenharper321 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of rejections
In one place in the article, it states it was at least 26. In another place, it states it was 40 odd (more than 40 but less than 50). Although both appeared sourced (which I did not check), should the apparent disparity be addressed in the article?--Filll (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the two sources contradict each other - and both are direct quotes from L'Engle herself. I'll take a stab at the "forty-odd" sentence, but feel free to rephrase it if it remains unclear. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Go nova?
Not sure this is a good English expression. Comments?--Filll (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that bothered me as well. I'll try to come up with a better phrase based on the text of the scene. --Karen | Talk | contribs 07:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Alex Murry, Dr. Kate Murry
I find myself frequently reverting changes in the names of these two characters. If you read through the article, you'll see that the names of Meg's parents are firmly established in An Acceptable Time as Alex (Alexander) and Kate (Katherine), not Jack and Dana. The names Jack and Dana were created by the people who made the TV movie of the same name. They are NOT the sames of the actual characters from the books. Please stop changing this! Thank you. --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Movie
THe movie wasnt as good as i thought it would be. Several things were different. Im making a collection of differences, please add.

1. IT was a giant pulsing yellow thing, not a larger than usual brain. 2. They do not say the name Jesus 3. Meg has no glasses or braces.

PLEASE ADD! --Stephenharper321 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We've pretty much covered two of the three already, just not in quite the same words. The differences are covered in slightly more detail in A Wrinkle in Time (film). We should probably add your point about IT over in that article. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Typo
My book had a typo:

Charles Wallace stared after him. "What is it?" he asked Meg and Charles.

I'm wondering if anyone else has had the typo too so it might be able to be in this article.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.82.183 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Typos and other small mistakes aren't generally considered notable enough to be mentioned. But for what it's worth, my 1960s editions both have that typo, and the recent Square Fish edition I just looked at correctly replaces the second "Charles" with "Calvin". That edition has other typos, though. You can't win! --Karen | Talk | contribs 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How many did you buy?! Anyways, just a little mention somewhere in the article about the typos should be worthwhile. I don't usually see any typos in other books I've read.

Another one:

"Of course our food, being synthetic, is not superior to your messes of beans and bacon and so forth"

Although I'm sure his food tastes bad, not quite finished with this book.71.72.82.183 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see: I have eight copies in different editions published over a 42-year period, plus audio and video. And yes, I've noticed that other line before too, which may or may not be what she intended to say. But I see typos in books all the time. Many years ago, my elementary school teacher encouraged us to complain to a publisher about a sentence in some book or other, "He's knew here." Nowadays there are typos in almost everything, so I doubt a teacher would do that. --Karen | Talk | contribs 05:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Locations
I deleted a passage in the Location section that talked about reactions that "Some readers" had about the name of Camazotz. If someone has a citation to someone specific feeling that way, they could return that section. I also am adding an notice that this section requires citations for the sources of the names and might qualify as original research. While it is true that these places do share names with certain things, it doesn't follow that they are named after those things. Unless there is some outside evidence, this sounds a lot like original research. Ezrafan (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find this a little silly. What are the chances that L'Engle named large numbers of characters and places with names that correspond to classical and mythological figures (and this is in many books over a period of many years), and did so completely by coincidence? I see no reasonable chance that words like Ixchel were coined independently, or chosen with no awareness of their derivation, especially considering the rather transparent thematic links between source material and place or character named. Occam's Razor and all that.


 * That said, I have three books about L'Engle's writing as written by others, excluding a few study guides I haven't actually looked at, plus numerous books in which the author discusses her writing. Chances are excellent I can find at least one mention of her use of names that have a mythological derivation, if I'm willing to put in enough hours of reading and searching. I'll see what I can do.* I haven't seen anything to go with the New Mexico claim, and although I read a rather long article about Levittown some years ago that compared it with Camazotz (and with Pete Seeger's Little Boxes, incidentally), I'd be extremely lucky to track it down again. I did try EBSCOHost once, but no such luck!

* Cool. I found the Ixchel ref in Hettinga. Ooh, that was easy! --Karen | Talk | contribs 06:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Little Boxes was written by Malvina Reynolds. Regardless, you've done good work with this article and its cousins.--Hjal (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point isn't that it it's a coincidence that they correspond to the classical and mythological figures, I'm just saying that unless there's a third party reference it's original research to say that they are named after those figures. Just because a name is an allusion to something, it doesn't follow that something is "named after" it. As written, it sounds like the planet of Uriel is, in the universe of the book, named after an earth Archangel. That isn't really right. Ezrafan (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but since I've now loaded the section with third party references, it's moot. The article is better, and everybody wins! :)--Karen | Talk | contribs 07:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean from an in-universe perspective, but surely this is meant to be from an out-of-universe perspective. Still, I'll try to make it clearer.--Karen | Talk | contribs 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks much better, thank you Ezrafan (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow!
I've read this book back when I was in elementary school and I recall thinking that it was a pretty interesting and scary story. Now that I reread it at 26 years of age, I can't get over how poorly written it is. The plot is extremely loose and ill-developed and things are introduced without explanation and then quickly ignored for the remainder of the novel. The dialogue is very weak and appears so amatuerish. In contrast to something like Harry Potter, which read just recently, I seriously question why this book won any awards and why anyone bothers to read it anymore. It's atrocious -- perhaps this was the best there was in 1962.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 17:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use this page for discussion of the content of the article -- not opinions about the book. -- ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, L'Engle uses pencil-sketchy characters to allow the reader maximum freedom to project their own feelings into the characters. It's minimalist writing, like Hemingway, not cinematic inundate-the-reader writing, like Rowling. Audiences that grew up on movies more than books have problem appreciating the former. Also, its "amateurish", not "amatuerish".
 * All due respect to ℜob C., but I couldn't let this go without a reply.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
It is a great book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.145.174 (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations for this??
Why on earth is there a citation from an outside source for the year of publication of this novel???? That's one of most ridiculously unnecessary things I have ever seen on WP. A citation for the genre of the novel as "science fantasy" seems unnecessary as well.--WickerGuy (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow up: Can I ask if the DATE on the publication is accurate? I thought it was February 13th, not January 1st. And TOR seems to agree - https://www.tor.com/2012/02/13/a-wrinkle-in-time-excerpt/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.192.254 (talk) 08:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Description of Meg?
It seems as if someone "hacked" this page and wrote in "Meg is the dick of the family...". I would edit it but I have only skimmed through this book, so I don't think I'd be the best person to edit this article. Someone should fix this. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyFlyButterfly (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I simply reverted the vandalism; I didn't bother to check the description.
 * —WWoods (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. vs Mrs
In the book, Meg's mother is "Mrs. Murry" but the witches are "Mrs Whatsit" and so forth. I.e., Meg's mother takes a period at the end of her "Mrs" but the witches don't. Anyone know what the significance of this is? 38.111.35.2 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A shrewd and interesting observation, but I think the significance is anyone's guess. I would guess it is due to the "witches"- actually angelic beings from outer space simply disguising themselves as humans and adopting human names as an alias.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Tesseract Request
A Tesseract is in the FIFTH dimension. My request is to FIX IT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.168.218 (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's 4th dimension. See Tesseract. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "tesseract" as used in the book is not the same thing as the four-dimensional cube referenced in the Wikipedia article. In the novel, when the witches explain the tesseract to the children, the fourth dimension is loosely defined as time, and the tesseract is the fifth dimension. The text is unambiguous. --Schoolmann (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Major Themes?
The "Major Themes" section currently states, "It is a generic theme that is within every society there is a powerful dominant group that challenges the minority group. Very few of the powerless members of this group are resilient." The concept is puzzling, and the wording is poor - I can't work out if it's talking about a theme in "society," a theme in this genre, or a theme in this book. But if I'm reading it correctly it's a rather ludicrous generalization that is unsupported by any sources. What is a "theme within a society?" What does it mean to say that "very few of the powerless members of a minority group are resilient?" Who makes that assessment? This doesn't seem to meet the standards of NPOV, verifiability OR no original research. Unless I'm misunderstanding it? Anyone?Sadiemonster (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on A Wrinkle in Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207031123/http://www.fisherandfrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rt-read-alouds.pdf to http://www.fisherandfrey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rt-read-alouds.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225837/http://theopencritic.com/?p=27 to http://theopencritic.com/?p=27

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Young adult
I have not read this book. But the description makes it reasonably clear that it is a children's book, not one for young adults. The central characters age of 13 supports that. So I suggest calling it a children and young adult book. It would be more accurate to say children, I suspect.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A Wrinkle in Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103122911/http://www.scribd.com/doc/94642884/Classics-of-Science-Fiction-and-Fantasy-Literature to https://www.scribd.com/doc/94642884/Classics-of-Science-Fiction-and-Fantasy-Literature
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103122911/http://www.scribd.com/doc/94642884/Classics-of-Science-Fiction-and-Fantasy-Literature to https://www.scribd.com/doc/94642884/Classics-of-Science-Fiction-and-Fantasy-Literature

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Written Between 1923 and 2013?
The section "Publication History" starts with the sentence: "The book was written between 1923 and 2013." This would suggest that L'Engle started writing the book when she was 4 or 5 years old, and didn't finish it until 6 years after her death. It also seems to suggest that the book wasn't finished until 51 years after its publication. - Entrybreak (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to the article, as well as Bibliography for additional sources
Works Cited

Ang, Susan. "Wrinkle in Time, A (1962)." The Cambridge Guide to Children's Books in English. Ed. Victor Watson. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Web.

Bailey, Sarah P. "Publishers Rejected Her, Christians Attacked Her: The Deep Faith of 'A Wrinkle in Time' Author Madeleine L'Engle." The Washington Post, 2018, Biography In Context; Gale. Web. http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A530261696/BIC?u=wash43584&sid=BIC&xid=a8c7637d

Cullinan, Bernice E. "L'Engle, Madeleine." Continuum Encyclopedia of Children's Literature. Eds. Bernice E. Cullinan and Diane Goetz Person. London, UK: Continuum, 2005. Web.

Doty, Gene. "Review of A Wrinkle in Time." Christianity and Literature 43.1 (1993): 109-11. Web.

Simpson, James Beasley. "Humankind - Religion - Spirituality." Simpson's Contemporary Quotations. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin, 1988. Web.

Stott, Jon C. "The Lion and the Unicorn." (1977) Web.

Thomas. "L'Engle, Madeleine." Encyclopedia of Religious and Spiritual Development. Eds. Elizabeth M. Dowling and W. George Scarlett. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2006. Web.

Plan for Edits

Large, content edits to better uphold Wikipedia’s criteria for a meaningful article:

-	I plan to expand the Lead section by one or two sentence synopsis about the novel that will fill in a content gap that I believe exists in the Lead section. The sentences will solely contain information from the novel, with no critical interpretation.

-	Also, in the Lead section, I plan to add a couple sentences about the life and inspiration of writing the novel for Madeleine L’Engle. This addition is also directed at fixing a glaring content gap in the Lead section. I will write some of the information, and other parts I will move from the Publication History section.

-	Next, I plan to reorganize the quite lengthy Publication History section and divide it into two sections: Background and Publication History, to better fit Wikipedia’s criteria for the critical sections in an article on a novel.

-	I plan to greatly modify the Characters section to better fit Wikipedia’s criteria for meaningful sections within an article. I will delete much of each explanation to improve legibility, since much of the text is repetitive and boring to a reader.

-	I will delete the Locations section because the section seems to be too long for an insignificant topic. This follows Wikipedia’s guidelines of having properly proportionate sections, whose importance matches their length. I will move some of this information to the Major Themes section, as much of it has to do with critical analysis.

-	I plan to reorganize the sections at the bottom of the article to make the article flow in a more logical way, according to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I will move the Characters section to right after the Plot Summary, followed by the Themes section, and finally the Reception section.

- -	I will add a sub-section, within the section Major Themes, on Religious Analysis. I believe that there is a content gap regarding religious analysis, as numerous sections touch upon it, but none fully elaborate on it. Therefore, I will add this section of new material, using research, as well as parts of other sections to fully create a section that maintains Wikipedia’s criteria. There is religious information in the Plot Summary, Locations section, and Publication History that I plan to use, as well as research, to create a significant section.
 * 1) 	I plan to fully remove the References in popular culture section, as there is only one sentence in this section. This edit is aimed to uphold Wikipedia’s criteria for only having sections of relevance and significance, with sufficient information.

Smaller edits:

-	In the Publication History section, citation number 5 is in the middle of the sentence, when it should be at the end since there is now a quote without a citation at the end (from that same source). I will fix this citation to maintain the article’s credibility.

-	In the second paragraph in the Publication History section, I plan to add citations to improve the article’s credibility, as there is only one citation for the entire paragraph.

-	The first sentence of the second paragraph in the Plot Summary section requires a citation, as it references another novel. Again, I will add this citation to maintain the article’s, and Wikipedia’s, credibility and reliability.

-	In the Characters section, there is a citation from SparkNotes that I will remove, to uphold Wikipedia’s standards of using reliable sources.

-	I plan to remove bias language in the Characters sections (for instance using phrases such as “like many adolescent girls…”). I will remove this language to improve the article’s neutrality, so it upholds Wikipedia’s criteria for bias/neutrality. -	There are other weak adjectives I plan to replace in the characters section that make the article sound less sophisticated. These edits are directed at improving legibility of the article.

-	I plan to remove the quotations in the Plot Summary, as they seem to come from the novel itself, yet are not cited. These quotations could confuse the reader, so I plan to remove them in order to maintain clear legibility in the article.

-	In the Major Themes section, I plan to make a similar edit, yet instead of removing quotes, I plan to remove the information within the parentheses, in order to maintain legibility for the reader.

-	In the reception section, I plan to clarify where each quote is directly coming from, as there are an abundance of quotes that seem to come out of nowhere. This edit will improve reliability and legibility for a reader, as well as upholding Wikipedia’s criteria for citations. -	Finally, I plan on removing numerous hyperlinks that are extremely distracting and not useful for the reader. For instance, going through the article in order: “general store,” “camping trip” “pun” “tentacles” …and there are more I will look over in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aciccia93 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Cartoon
kiki

Article Evaluation
This article is well-developed and provides a wide range of information about the book. Along with a summary, it includes major themes, awards, the ways in which the book was received by various groups of people, and many other notable topics. One way to improve the article would be add the necessary citations to the "Characters" section. Additionally, "Characters" section separates the different characters into categories. There is a "Supernatural Characters" categorization and a "Secondary Alien Characters" categorization. Since the secondary alien characters are also supernatural, perhaps they could be listed as a subsection in the "Supernatural Characters" category. Samzak6 (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

No citation needed
Someone has flagged every single character in the article with a "citation needed" tag. This is, frankly, ridiculous. The capsule description of the characters in the novel is taken (obviously) from the novel itself. As the entire article is about the novel, insisting on independent citations for every character IN the novel is absurd -- the novel itself IS the citation for the characters.

I've removed these unnecessary tags.

01:17, 4 August 2021 (UDI])

Updating Analysis
If anyone is interested in updating the analysis section of this article, I would recommend looking for more recent academic articles on the religious themes in the novel. It may also be worth expanding the other sections of the analysis to avoid overly emphasizing the religious themes. In particular, the section on feminism could be expanded with more sources. Though the existing section is good, I wonder if there have been more recent articles evaluating the themes of the novel that could strengthen this section. Satritt (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)