Talk:The Girl on the Train (novel)

Plot length
Considering the rest of this article, should the plot summary be trimmed down to maybe two paragraphs? At least for the time being until there’s more of other content. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something like this? (Note: I do not consider myself a good writer.) "Rachel Watson is introduced as a 32-year-old alcoholic taking the train to London every day to hide her unemployment from her roommate. Two years prior, she discovered her husband, Tom, was cheating on her, and he left her and married his mistress, Anna. However, Tom cheated on Anna as well, having an affair with neighbor Megan Hipwell, who is also married. As the story begins, Megan is pregnant and believes Tom to be the father. On being confronted with this information, Tom ultimately murders her and buries her in a shallow grave. When Rachel takes note of Megan's disappearance after often watching her from the train window, she begins to investigate it, lying to Megan's husband to get close, and causing distress to both Tom and Anna with her frequent drunkenness. Tom eventually confesses the murder to Rachel and Anna before attacking Rachel, who kills him in self-defense." —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Chronology
My rewrite puts the events of the book in chronological order (because it seemed the best way to communicate the information). This is permitted by WP:PLOTSUM, but is it desirable here? If we should more closely follow the order in which the book reveals past events, how could it be done clearly and concisely? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sense?
In the plot section, there's a phrase "Rachel and even fights back." It doesn't seem to make sense. I compared histories but still couldn't find if something's missing and what the meaning should be. Help please. Manytexts (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting
I would just like to defend my edit that was reverted on 14th May, apparently because it was not an improvement. The term US is not the name or abbreviation of the country; that is USA, although US is often used as an adjective instead of "American" - US citizen. I do not see why it is so certain that USA is "deprecated" here. However, the use of full stops in the abbreviations UK and USA is not normal (see the articles on United Kingdom and UNited States among many others). I would also like to point out that the use of the phrase "more clear" is not good English, so cannot understand why correcting that has been also labelled as "not an improvement".--82.27.217.102 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have cited WP:NOTUSA in my edit summary, but USA is definitely deprecated. I have to concede to you though that US/UK would be preferred in this article over U.S./U.K., I forgot that it was a British novel/British author (US/UK is predominant in the US and Canada, also per WP:NOTUSA). Maybe we are having an American English vs UK English situation, but both clearer and more clear are grammatically correct (Google it). I personally don't like the sound of clearer in spoken English, but I won't fight you on that if you feel strongly about it. As far as might vs. may, might has a future connotation but again, perhaps this is a US-UK discrepancy, I'm assuming you're British.— TAnthonyTalk 22:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - I had never come across that WP policy, so if it's okay I shall restore my edit with just the US form conserved.--82.27.217.102 (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Plot glitch
I added this section but not really sure where to put it. Have not seen such a remark in other books. Its detail, but I liked the book and the nature of its writing engages the brain and mine just went Ooops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot (talk • contribs) 21:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I deleted this section. It's clear she had 2 phones--her main phone, plus an older model that she just used for things she wanted to keep secret from her husband. There is no glitch here, plus this is the kind of thing that wouldn't merit its own section, even if there were a foundation to it.QuizzicalBee (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. I'll check on it, I seem to recall she had a second phone, but when Tom buries her he clearly does not find two phones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Hugot (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * For the record, even if this a real error, it is original research (and not notable) unless a reliable source has mentioned it elsewhere, and would not be appropriate to add to the article.— TAnthonyTalk 14:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)