Talk:The Age of Innocence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kearnp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
no need for "film" tag, as it already have a separate film page here.

Anon comments on the film adaptation
Anon left the following comment:
 * if critics consider it one of Scorsese's best works, and Scorsese is just about my favorite director, and I have read and re-read Jane Austen etc. for pleasure again and again my whole life, then why Oh why have I rented this movie twice and been bored almost to death both times? I am turning it off with the counter at 25 minutes. Is it a good movie? or is it a piece of pooh?

Edith Wharton wrote it, not Jane Austen. The movie may be difficult if you have not read the book, otherwise it is one of the more faithful book adaptations I've seen. -- Stbalbach 05:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Jane Asten wrote it, I said Jane Austen etc. Meaning only that I am literate. The film may be a faithful adaptation, but it is boring. Scorsese is great, and when he fails he usually makes a glorious failure (like Last Temptation). But this is not a glorious failure. Just a failure. Compare it to polanski's Oliver Twist or whoever's the latest Pride and Predjudice.

p.s., Sorry I defaced the article instead of posting to the discussion. I achieved that with the POWER OF ALCOHOL!

Intro?
The first paragraph of the introduction is two sentences. I think the second one is a little bit dramatically worded for an encyclopedia article, and the syntax is somewhat strange. It summarizes the book well, but I think that for clarity's sake it should be broken up into a few declarative sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.119.96 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, the introduction may be nicely written (though I suspect it might have been taken at least partially from the book itself), but its style has no place in an encyclopaedia. I'm removing it. --DearPrudence (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright issues?
The section related to characters seems to have been taken from this page: http://www.bookrags.com/notes/aoi/CHR.htm, which contains no reference to Wikipedia, but instead contains a clear copyright note at the bottom ofthe page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.151.44 (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All these years later, there is still too much similarity in the character descriptions here compared to the bookrags link. There has been some revision, but more would be useful. --Prairieplant (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Start class?
Why is this rated as a start class article? It seems heftier than that to me. Of course all articles can be improved. My small addition was to add the Pulitzer Prize in the infobox, matching what is said in the text. --Prairieplant (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Removed uncited quotes
I've had to remove the below paragraph from the end of the section: everything I've bolded here reads like original research to me. Can someone with access to the Cambridge Companion cited please check if any of those lines are in fact quotes from it?

Thanks. — Hugh (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)