Talk:The Pilgrim's Progress

Comment

I have a few comments to put up here, and hope you can fix them soon. :) Here they are:

• In ref 1, isn't foreward spelled incorrectly? I'd believe it would be spelled as forward instead.
• The section Allegory needs a few more refs, and Ampthill should be linked.  Done
• The section Plot needs more refs too, it would be nice.  Done and whole book is in wikisource. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• The book was the basis of an opera by Ralph Vaughan Williams, first performed in 1951. This statement needs a ref. Done
• The story has been made into films and used in video games. this one needs a ref as well.
• Although the language of The Pilgrim’s Progress may seem old-fashioned to us now, <--doesn't this sound slightly NPOV-ish? :P Not all people might think it old-fashioned... But sorry for being picky. You can leave it if you think it doesn't matter.  Done

On this point: the book was written 3.5 centuries ago, so it's obvious the language will be somewhat outdated. (see excerpt below) Refs are most needed when a statement may be challenged. Who would challenge this? Macdonald-ross (talk)

"WORLD. I beshrew him for his counsel! there is not a more dangerous and troublesome way in the world than is that into which he hath directed thee; and that thou shalt find, if thou wilt be ruled by his counsel. Thou hast met with something, as I perceive, already; for I see the dirt of the Slough of Despond is upon thee: but that slough is the beginning of the sorrows that do attend those that go on in that way. Hear me; I am older than thou: thou art like to meet with, in the way which thou goest, wearisomeness, painfulness, hunger, perils, nakedness, sword, lions, dragons, darkness, and, in a word, death, and what not. These things are certainly true, having been confirmed by many testimonies. And should a man so carelessly cast away himself, by giving heed to a stranger?"

Mmm, you have a point, Macdonald. Okay, then, you can leave that one alone... But would it be right to use the expression "us" in wiki? I thought that was mostly avoided if possible in the manual of style. Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe some "Other websites" would be good in it too. Most GAs have them, you know ;)...

Okay, that's about it. Once you adress them, I'll add more. :) Cheers, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that foreword is spelled right. πr² (talk • changes) 02:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is right. A foreword is a piece placed before the main content of a book. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for that then. My bad... Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 06:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

In the Allegory section there is the phrase "(now on the A1)." This should be fixed to make it clear exactly what the A1 is - I assume it is a road. The simple wiki article on the A1 says it is a freeway in Switzerland. Peterdownunder (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Now linked to an explanatory page. And thank you for Ampthill.Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead too short

Right now the lead is too short for the length of the article. It should be expanded to a "meaty" one paragraph, or two decently sized ones. Either way (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and now  Done Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd part of the plot

The 2nd part of the plot needs expansion to meet at least half of the first part of the plot. Albacore (talk · changes) 22:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was much needed, and now  Done. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A short comment

Overall, this article is quite well written. However, I do have two concerns:

• ...physically and mentally challenged individuals. <-- physically, mentally, challenged are all complex words. In my opinion, individuals is complex as well (perhaps people might be better), but it is a BE word.

The formulation ...physically and mentally challenged individuals is modern American politically-correct (PC) language for the English words cripple (on the one hand) and moron or idiot (on the other hand). The intention of PC is to avoid any description which mighht be seen as hurtful. The effect is to make the prose more difficult to understand. Even mental deficiency (which is perfectly good English) is beyond BE; neither word is in the list. I will substitute "people with weak bodies and minds" in the text. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like a section about its legacy. It's had a quite an impact on not only English literature, but culture as well.

Hopefully these can be done and this excellent article can be made a GA. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 09:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The cultural effect (apart from literary) was almost entirely religious: it reinforced English Protestantism. I've added a revised section from enWP which makes this point fully. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

I've noticed that references 12 and 13 are from the English Wikisource. I'm not sure that Wikisource is a reliable reference, seeing as Wikipedia is not a reliable reference itself. Maybe a different reference needs to be found? Albacore (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wikisource in question is simply an on-line version of the text in the book. Although the typography is different, the content is the same as in the book. Therefore it is reliable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with the Project Gutenberg version: the Wikisource version has an index which helps users to find the section they are looking for; Gutenberg does not (the book itself had no chapter headings, and is just continuous text). For our purposes I think the Wikisource version is better. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)