Talk:Little Women/Archive 3

Little Children (film) disambiguation?
I put in see also but maybe people would go to wrong page and need dismabig ?UnDegree 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg
Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ages and Dates
When does the book say it takes place? What time period does it cover? How old are the girls in the book? -69.87.203.44 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh hush, just add it in if you know. ~ Otterpops 12:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Brooke
So, I was wondeing if anyone could tell me about Mr. Brooke? Like any characteristics, traits, anything anybody knows about him, personality? So yea please help me! I need to know, long story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.32 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yonge inspiration?
Has anybody here read The Daisy Chain by Charlotte Yonge, published in 1856? I'm re-reading it and the parallels with Little Women are amazing. Not to mention the reference to Yonge's Heir of Redclyffe. I have to wonder if Alcott had read it not long before writing Little Women or had read it so often that it influenced her plot -- or she picked out family incidents that reminded her of it in some way. Patrij (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg
Image:Little women 1994 lg 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

i also cannot find the carrol's in the book. what chapter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 02:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"Good Wives"?
I do always wonder if this novel ends in the declaration of Prof Baher to Jo or if it covers some of the story of their marriage. i neaver have read the "Good Wives" novel.

--189.166.31.247 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Good Wives" is the second half of "Little Women". It begins right at the jump that occurs right around the time Laurie proposes to Jo.--Simonjf (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Á Bible Christmas Present
According to the notes in the version of "Little Women" I am currently reading (from Oxford World Classics), the Christmas present they get isn't the New Testament, but a copy of "Pilgrim's Progress".

However, I just wanted to check this with other people before changing the article itself... --Ophias 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. Rereading it at the moment, we're not told what the book they get is.  It's only described as "that lovely old story of the best life ever lived", "your guidebook", and so on.  Do we know if Alcott ever identified the book?
 * However, that the book was "Pilgrim's Progress" is a common claim in notes, certainly, so well worthy of being in the article. Vashti 13:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely Pilgrim's Progress and I've gone ahead and made the change. Evidence: The chapter titles are all references to PP; the novel is threaded throughout with allusions to it; and here are a couple of quotations-- "She knew it very well, for it was that beautiful old story of the best life ever lived, and Jo felt that it was a true guidebook for any pilgrim going on a long journey." - Chapter 2; "'Rather a rough road for you to travel, my little pilgrims, especially the latter part of it. But you have got on bravely, and I think the burdens are in a fair way to tumble off very soon,' said Mr. March, looking with fatherly satisfaction at the four young faces gathered round him. - Chapter 22; "'I read in Pilgrim's Progress today how, after many troubles, Christian and Hopeful came to a pleasant green meadow where lilies bloomed all year round, and there they rested happily, as we do now, before they went on to their journey's end,' answered Beth, adding, as she slipped out of her father's arms and went to the instrument, 'It's singing time now, and I want to be in my old place. I'll try to sing the song of the shepherd boy which the Pilgrims heard. I made the music for Father, because he likes the verses.'" - Chapter 22. --Ibis3 01:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

mickey mouse wrote this-isnt that awesome???????? =) I'm not sure if the 'books'  are  Pilgrim's Progress. It's true that Little Women makes frequent reference to it. However, it would be hard to describe PP as 'the story of the best life ever lived'. That sounds more like the New Testament, which is the story of Jesus. PP  could  be described as a guidebook to life. However, in Pilgrim's Progress, Christian, the main character, has a 'book' which he uses as a guidebook. This is clearly the Bible. So it seems to me that the girls were given Bibles or New Testaments, but were also very familiar with PP. Certainly the article should reflect the fact that there is a certain amount of uncertainty. 86.147.50.241 (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While this part of the book is undoubtedly an important part, does Pilgrim's Progress really account for this much importance in the article. There is almost just as much written about Pilgrim's Progress as there is about Jo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 11:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beth...
Can we mention that in the end that Beth dies? It would be considered as a spoiler. Should we put a spoiler tag instead in the characters list? HoneyBee 02:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)She does so not!!!


 * I agree with putting it in, and the tag just below the characters section header. — Jeandré, 2005-12-05t11:28z

i agree as well, especially because there is an lack of autobiographical context which would help situation a reader into Alcott's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjf (talk • contribs) 03:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am against spoilers unless plainly marked, as it ruins Wikipedia for students and younger readers. However, it's pretty much a free-for-all, so if you are a teacher and want your students to have an unspoiled read of a book - tell them not to come to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 05:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I changed it-- the article claimed that Beth survives, which is inaccurate. If you don't want a spoiler, you shouldn't be reading the encyclopedia entry pon the novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.229.79 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects for Little Women Characters

 * Elizabeth March character in the Louisa May Alcott novel Little Women
 * Jo March character in the Louisa May Alcott novel Little Women

These are the two redirects for the four sisters in the novel. One is the full name, one is the nickname, and the other two sisters do not have redirects at all, nor do other characters with the surname March. Can someone add six more redirects for the sisters, and consider the merits of redirects for other characters? Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8


 * Redirects added for the four sisters and Robin March, father of the sisters. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8


 * considering the fame of this book, & its many countless sequels. I suggest individual articles for each of the major characters. There is one now for Theodore Laurence, (which was nominated for proposed deletion) but it needs considerable improvement. DGG (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is book for all they family it is very enjoyable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.148.92 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Carrolls"
The main article identifies "Aunt & Uncle Carrol" as people who take Amy to Europe. This is incorrect; Aunt March takes Amy to Europe, falls ill and dies there, which prompts Laurie to go collect Amy, marry her, and bring her home.

I'm sorry, but have you actually read the book? The Carrol's take Amy to Europe, and while she's there, Beth dies, that's why Laurie reunites with Amy, they marry and go home... --190.78.125.21 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know who Aunt and Uncle Carrol are? I have no recollection of them in this novel. BellTinkR (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the film versions, Aunt March and Aunt and Uncle Carrol are condensed into one person, Aunt March. Flo, the cousin, is written out. In reality, in the book, Amy goes to Europe with Aunt and Uncle Carrol and cousin Flo as a reward for her good behavior as a companion with Aunt March. Please reference Chapter 31 of the book Little Women if you want to change it back to her going to Europe with Aunt March, which is completely incorrect as far as the novel goes. Uncle and Aunt Carrol are not well-developed characters, which might be why people have a hard time remembering them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.220.10 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anime
The Anime section is poorly written and referenced and could do with some cleanup from someone familiar with the topic. Helenabella (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Making an attempt.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
I just discovered that the section called Characters has been copy and pasted from the PBS site for American Masters, where a section of Porter's book is excerpted. I put in the link. This section needs to be rewritten or eliminated immediately. If no one else does it in a few days, I 'll come back when I have time and deal with it.--TEHodson 04:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Outline
Up for review Your instructor has asked me to look at the outlines for changes that you plan to make to this article. It appears that you have yet to create an outline on this talk page, so it's not possible for me to provide feedback. Please bear in mind that I will be happy to help you, but I can't do that if you don't make any effort yourself. Pacing yourself is key to this assignment and since semester is mostly over, you really need to ensure that you're keeping up with project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor characters Order
The minor characters seem to be listed in random order. I think they should be listed in order of importance, though that might be a little hard to decide. Or should they be alphabetical? What do others think? Tlqk56 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up page?
If anyone knows how to remove the text box that the first sentence is in, it would be nice. It doesn't look too good. Unfortunately I don't know enough about coding to see where it's coming from.

Also, if whoever is working on this will go to this page and change the way the footnotes are cited, it will shorten them a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Footnotes#Multiple_references_to_the_same_footnote I'd do it myself but I just don't have time. I may come back later, though. This is such a wonderful book, it deserves a great article! Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first problem for ya, the markup doesn't like any empty spaces at the beginning of lines. We don't really indent except on discussion pages. The Interior  (Talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I'm just getting the hang of this! Tlqk56 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Influence concerns
I see that in April, User: Boffobabe made significant additions to this article, most of which come directly from Sarah Elbert's work on Little Women. However, User: Boffobabe has not made any other edits on WP of any kind. My first inclination is that we may have a WP:COI editor at play here. But even if we don't, the additions here so heavily influence the tone of the article that this reads less like an attempt at an evenhanded description of Little Women and more like a description of Elbert's interpretation of Little Women. Any other thoughts? Someone who is more familiar than I with Alcott's work who might like to reduce the reliance on Elbert's views? Grandpallama (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The extensive reference to Elbert by name and in quoted passages does make it seem like the article offers only one interpretation of the book (which is not to say that I know anything about broader interpretations or criticism). Regarding the conflict of interest, it might be worth noting that the user mentioned above says (on her user page) she's working on a class project; I doubt that she is in fact Elbert. Franknarf11 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Either way I agree that that too much of that resource are used, and without saying in the text where they come from, which isn't required but is helpful, it distorts the article's slant. I'd like to see someone scale it way back. I have other projects of my own, I'd prefer if someone who's already worked on the article did it. Tlqk56 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Issue
It is unclear whether the below text is in the public domain or not. It is unattributed, yet appears verbatim on the web:. I have removed it to the talk page until its origins and compliance with WP:COPY can be ascertained. Editors anyone may rewrite a short synopses of the book.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot Overview

First part Little Women follows the lives of the four March sisters, from oldest to youngest: Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy. The start of the story is set at Christmastime, where Jo, the second eldest of the March sisters, grumbles, "Christmas won't be Christmas without any presents." The four girls discuss the upcoming holiday and sigh as they long for pretty things that they can't have because of money constraints. On Christmas morning, they present their mother, affectionately known as "Marmee", with the gifts that they used their own money to buy and proceed to give their Christmas breakfast to the Hummels, a poor family of immigrants, while they settle for bread and milk. They are later rewarded when the wealthy neighbor, old Mr. Laurence sends them ice cream and flowers. Soon after, Meg and Jo attend a New Years party at Meg's friend, Sallie Gardiner,'s house, where they meet Mr. Laurence's grandson. Theodore "Laurie" Laurence, who is later christened "Teddy" by Jo, proves to be a good friend. The March sisters resume their everyday routines after the holidays end and take up their little burdens: Meg works as a governess in a household of unruly children, Jo looks after her disagreeable Aunt March, Amy faces a hard-hearted teacher and hostile peers, and although she stays at home and keeps house, Beth longs to take music lessons and have a fine piano. The girls, and their new friend Laurie, still find time for fun in snowball fights, the Pickwick club, and their little P.O. box, where all things from poetry and pickles to garden-seeds and puppies pass through. Mr. Laurence becomes like a grandfather to shy Beth and gives her his deceased granddaughter's piano. Almost a year later, the family receives a telegram informing that their father, who has been away serving as a chaplain in the Civil War since he is too old to fight, has been injured. The girls are left to run the house while their mother goes to Washington D.C. to be with him. Laurie's tutor, John Brooke, accompanies her. Meanwhile, Beth has been visiting the Hummels regularly and has caught scarlet fever from the baby. She recovers but will never be fully healthy again. Mr. March returns home and Mr. Brooke asks for Meg's hand in marriage. She is unsure at first but agrees, and they are engaged.

Second part Three years thereafter Meg is happily married to John, and they have their own little house and twin babies. After Laurie returns from college, Jo has noticed a change in "her boy" and fears that he has fallen in love with her. She goes to a boarding house in New York to be a governess for the winter, while Amy goes abroad to Europe. Meanwhile, Beth is growing weaker and closer to death's door. Jo befriends a German professor and works on her writing, while the artist in Amy is inspired by the beauty and culture surrounding her in France, Germany, Switzerland, and England. Both girls often send letters home to the family describing their adventures. Jo returns home and as she feared, Laurie proposes. As she loves him only as a friend, she turns him down and heartbroken, he leaves for Europe. Jo continues to look after Beth until she passes away. Since sweet Beth was her special girl, Jo is inconsolable. Laurie and Amy hear the news and return from Europe, quietly announcing their recent marriage. As the March family happily greets the newlyweds, a knock is heard at the door. Jo finds it is Professor Bhaer, so she invites him in and introduces him to the family. He is well received, and soon the two realize their affections for one another. A year later, Jo and Fritz Bhaer are married and settled at Plumfield, land Jo inherited from Aunt March after she died. They turn the big house into a school for boys and have two of their own, whom they name Rob after Jo's father, and Teddy after Laurie. Laurie and Amy have their own little girl named Beth, in memory of the beloved sister. Five years later, the entire family attends the Plumfield yearly "apple" picking: Marches, Laurences, Brookes, and Bhaers, alike. The book closes with Marmee saying, "O my girls, however long you may live, I never can wish you a greater happiness than this!"

Weasel Wording
If anyone has access to the Sarah Elbert source, it would be good to review what it says at page 193, to which the following sentence is sourced: some people questioned how she was able to write so beautifully and reflectively about "American home life.” "Some People" appears to be weasel wording, see [WP:WEASEL], unless we can determine that the books' author really used the term. I'd rather fix the issue or remove the sentence.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence removed, can be re-added when source is double checked and weasel wording changed.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Jo section
jo montana is also in hanna

Her section is written like some combination of a back-of-book summary and an essay. It was easy enough to fix the use of first- and second-person and use of future tense in the last paragraph, but it still needs a re-write from someone who is more familiar with the plot of the book. The entire last paragraph should be gutted for its "What do you think will happen?" open-endedness and replaced with information about what actually happens to Jo at the end of the book. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This whole article needs to be done from scratch--it's a mess. I keep hoping I'll feel inspired to do it (just re-read the book) but I haven't felt up to it. There needs to be a clear distinction between Jo and Louisa May. They are not the same person, however similar, and whoever started this page didn't get off to a good start on that score. And people need to stop writing essays about who the characters are and do a good plot summary. Maybe I'll do it soon, but if anyone else wants to start, please do.--TEHodson 00:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article states that "Jo rejects Laurie to marry Professor Bhaer, who is much older than she, believing him better suited to her. "The crucial first point is that the choice is hers, its quirkiness another sign of her much-prized individuality". This isn't correct.  Jo rejects Laurie because she isn't in love with him.  At this point in the novel, she hasn't even met Friedrick Bhaer.  She meets him when she takes a Governess position in New York to get away from Laurie and the reminder that she has lost his friendship and caused him pain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.61.106 (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Little Wives
"Good Wives" was published as "Little Wives" at some point. Do we know where, when, and why? 109.157.79.50 (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It also seems to have been published as "Little Women Wedded". 109.157.79.50 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary, the immigrant audience and religion
This is the first Wikipedia article about a novel that I have read, that tells the plot wholly through the character descriptions. A short plot summary might improve the article, no more than four paragraphs or about 800 words. Then the character descriptions for the sisters might be more focused on character, and not events. The audience for the novel is claimed to be the many immigrants flooding into the US at the end of the 19th century, of whom so many were Catholic, from southern Europe. Did the novel's distinct Protestant Christian focus not dissuade them at all from the story? The one character who is Catholic, the French maid to Aunt March, is useful for teaching Amy French, and how to calm herself, but her rosary is a rather scary thing to Amy, not something she can safely touch, or really ask how it is used. Question put out for those who know more about the immediate audience for the novel, beyond the 2,000 book sale that astonished the publisher on first printing. The other part missing from this article is publication history, which might note when copyright was lost, and collect any other comments on its sales since it was published. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I put up a draft of a plot summary. Feel free to improve it. I also added a bit in the Publication history indicating continuous publication from the 1980s to 2014 in multiple media as recorded on the web site Fantastic Fiction, and that some publishers still issue the two parts as separate volumes with separate titles, though both are treated as one book in this article. I am not all up on the scholarly research on this book, so I leave that others, though it does interest me that religion is never an issue, but rather the role of a woman in American society --Prairieplant (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

correct literary genre -- coming of age story or Bildungsroman?
I put both Coming-of-age story and Bildungsroman in the genre entry in the infobox. I do not know which is correct for this book. Little Women is not mentioned in the Wikipedia articles for either genre. The link had to be changed, as it was pointing to a general article on Coming of age in various cultures, with a quick sentence in the lead that books and films use the term as well. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation method for often cited sources in this article
This article is using the rp system for many authors, so the full cite is given once in the html, and the page number in that book is indicated by rp|page number in brackets Template:Rp. The page number shows in the text next to the reference number. The benefit of this is that the oft-cited authors are immediately evident in the Reference list, the Reference list is shorter, the number of times the author/book is cited is shown by the a, b, c, etc in the Reference list, and the page numbers are easy to read. Plus, just one isbn is used for each book (some isbn numbers were incorrect) and thus easy to check that is the correct number. It is an easy system to use once you look at in the html version of the article, with the rp|page number in double curly brackets after the citation with the full details, and again after the ref name=Book / citations. Sorry I had not noticed the errors creeping in, after my long effort to improve the formats in the Reference list a while back. I hope that is okay with you, and that other editors will notice this system and keep it up. --Prairieplant (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a good system, and I have no objection to it. My edits were just to avoid having the same reference name defined multiple times with different values. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary, length and other issues.
I am disappointed to see how you handled my longer, and in my opinion, improved from a written standpoint, plot summary. Simply reverting back to your own version, without even discussing with me or leaving a message, is not the way editors normally cooperate on Wikipedia. I have no desire to get into an edit war with you over it, but just expressing that when someone makes an improvement to a page, throwing it out wholesale in favor of your own version with no discussion is not really an encouraging, helpful, or team-building way to proceed. TheBlinkster (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that I disappointed you. The Plot summary in place is at the limit of length for Wikipedia as it is. Your editing made it way longer. The summary can always be made better; in this case it means making it better within the Wikipedia limits for length. I did read what you wrote, and mainly it added details-- not main plot line-- rather than finding a better way to succinctly convey the plot. That is why reverting was the simplest change for me to make. Lots of novels now sold as one book were originally published in 2 or 3 volumes; that does not stretch the length for the Plot summary when there is one article for the whole novel. I find it challenging to write succinct summaries of long novels, but I know it can be done so I keep trying to learn how to keep to the major points. Other editors often "tighten up" a posted plot summary without losing the main thread of the story, better than I can do it. Also keep in mind that lots of the details of the novel are discussed in other sections of that article, as there has been much scholarly analysis of Little Women over the years. I hope you can see my reasons, and that you keep contributing to articles on novels. There is a Wikipedia article with guidance on how to write a summary. WP:NOVELS might be the link. I am writing this on my phone, where I have not figured how to open a second tab to get the correct name for the article, sorry. A search using 'length of Plot summary in Wikipedia' may find you the right article. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't object so much to your having concerns about the length, or even the added detail, as I do about the fact that you would just revert somebody's significant that wasn't vandalism and that clearly had been done with some thought, without even attempting to discuss or notify the person whose change you reverted. My opinion is that the summary in its current form is lacking - it's disorganized and leaves out important details from the book (some detail is important) and that, even if my attempt was too long, it would be more proper to try to strike some balance between the two rather than just throwing it all out in favor of yours. I also think that other sections of the article are too lengthy and could benefit from cuts, though I chose not to make them, which in turn might free up some room for a longer plot given that like I said this book is really two rather different books (two volumes, two parts, etc.)  However, your handling of the reversion was so out of character from my usual, more collaborative experience on Wikipedia that I'm not inclined to try to improve this particular article further, as I don't want to waste time working on an article that just gets reverted with no discussion.  Have a nice day. TheBlinkster (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That Plot summary has not been changed by other editors in a while. If the summary is too long it will get one of those flags put on it, the other option I had instead of reverting. But that leaves the work to someone else. I figured you would be watching the article, so I explained all I could in the edit summary. The length rule is not altered for the novel being long. Not a rule I wrote, just how Wikipedia wants things to be. Sorry if I acted differently than other editors you have encountered, such that you feel insulted. My own efforts get reverted, and I watch other fiction summaries, where this same thing happens, a max length summary is expanded instead of revised. I do not mean to insult you. My interest is in the short summary. If you do come back to this article, try to revise but within those limits. Please do ignore the volume split, it us not pertinent for the summary. The length of the rest of the article has no bearing on the length of the summary, so that is not a useful plan for a longer summary; I mentioned the rest of the article as a place that details too minor for the summary get picked up in analysis or criticism. Some editors place little value on the summary, saying that "notability" resides in what is written in the other sections, like themes, critical reception and the like. Me, I like a good plot summary. When I have trouble getting it terse, succinct, I look at summaries for novels that are even longer books, yet shorter summaries, to remind me that it can be done. That is the challenge, and it is worth trying drafts in your sandbox to meet it. I do not defend what is there as the best possible summary--it is a reasonable one that just fits the max length guidelines.


 * My main work on this article was putting format to the inline citations, on text written by others, and looking at the sources. It had no plot summary when I first read it, if memory serves. When I get to my regular computer, I think I will move this discussion to the Talk page for Little Women, and flag you that I did. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)