Wikipedia:Peer review/Nineteen Eighty-Four/archive1

Nineteen Eighty-Four
There's some great info in here, as well as a lot of interpretation of the novel which is interesting. I just feel the article does not flow enough for it to be featured. --Alexs letterbox 06:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time right now to do a detailed read through, but two things stick out. First, the lead section is probably too short for an article of this length.  Maybe add  more synopsis, more interpretation, or both.  I suggest shortening the first little paragraph on the title and moving that into the lead.  Try to keep the spoiler warning where it is (that is, don't delve into plot in the lead).  Also, the repeated mention to "the original working title" and the like is rather annoying.  Also, nothing needs to be bolded outside the first sentence of the lead.  I'll try to take a more in-depth look later. --Spangineer &#8734; 04:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Spangineer. Lead is several times to short. I wouldn't shorten the other paragrahps, lead is supposed to be a summary, not a place for new info. There are few elinks in the main body, move them to elink or note section and link with Footnotes if necessary. Finally I believe there is an important section amiss - on books, films, etc. that where inspired by 1984. While I am happy Newspeak has its own section, Big Brother deserves one as well, being perhaps even more famous term coined in this book. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Goldsteinism is obviously a metaphor for Trostkyism, with Big Brother for Stalin. Why no mention of this?Ogg 17:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that is POV. Those were common interpretations, but I believe Orwell did not have them specifically in mind. In fact, it is often argued that he simply took what was happening in many other countries to the logical extreme in the novel. Is there any surviving material on Orwell's intent and motivations that addresses this? - Taxman 21:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * If those are common interpretations (and they certainly are), they're worthy of mention. If you have evidence to the contrary, that's also worthy of inclusion. &mdash;Wahoofive | Talk 23:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I think of it either the Cliff notes, or Sparks notes had something in their intro about Well's own notes about his writings. I don't have access to either now, but the right one could clear up this point. - Taxman 23:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)