Talk:Gothic stories: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(→Reads too much like an essay: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
a lot of this is copied and pasted from the first footnote. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! [[User:Bigredrabbit|Bigredrabbit]] ('''[[User talk:Bigredrabbit|talk to me]]''') 06:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC) | a lot of this is copied and pasted from the first footnote. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! [[User:Bigredrabbit|Bigredrabbit]] ('''[[User talk:Bigredrabbit|talk to me]]''') 06:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Which is why it's referenced. Much of the earlier stuff comparing the early 60s stories is ''referenced'' but I did go to lengths to re-write and research rather than copy. Also the first source doesn't ''cite'' any sources, I tried to source both the DW elements and the portions that define 'gothic' on fiction. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:45, October 30, 2010 (UTC) | :Which is why it's referenced. Much of the earlier stuff comparing the early 60s stories is ''referenced'' but I did go to lengths to re-write and research rather than copy. Also the first source doesn't ''cite'' any sources, I tried to source both the DW elements and the portions that define 'gothic' on fiction. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] 14:45, October 30, 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Reads too much like an essay == | |||
A lot of work and care has gone into this article, but it still feels like an essay, or a work of general film criticism, to me. The first honest-to-God reference that's actually relevant to this wiki doesn't happen until the second section. I honestly think you could keep the first paragraph (well, sentence), cut grafs 2-4, and then launch into "Doctor Who TV Gothic". Lots of the rest of the article could be cut, as well. I think any graf that's not focused like a laser on ''Doctor Who'' and its sister programs should be gone. It doesn't matter ''to us'' what Jerrold E. Hogle thinks gothic is; it matters what Terrance Dicks thinks it is. The article totally fails to deliver a simple definition of "gothic story" from any resource valid to this wiki. | |||
I think, too, that the article loses focus at the end where it confuses "gothic" and "horror" for the same thing. You're flat-out wrong to say that "in looking at the "gothic", it's also necessary to look at the role that horror also plays in the formulation of gothic stories". No it's not. The article is about "gothic stories", not "gothic horror stories". Keep on topic and the article will be miles better. | |||
Also, some of the sources are, well, dubious at best. TVTropes? Seriously? That's not valid; that's like saying wikipedia is a valid resource. Just because it's not a ''Wikia'' wiki doesn't mean it's not just another wiki. And Kasterberous? That's just a blog, as is cathoderaytube. There are a few good sources in the reference section, but most of it doesn't pass muster. | |||
This article just needs to simplify, get better sources, and stay on track. The article ''must'' be able to answer the question "What is a gothic story?" with valid DW sources, or there's simply no need for it. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}} <span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">'''00:28:05 Mon '''27 Jun 2011 </span> | |||
Revision as of 00:28, 27 June 2011
a lot of this is copied and pasted from the first footnote. I'm A Hydroponic Tomato! Bigredrabbit (talk to me) 06:35, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Which is why it's referenced. Much of the earlier stuff comparing the early 60s stories is referenced but I did go to lengths to re-write and research rather than copy. Also the first source doesn't cite any sources, I tried to source both the DW elements and the portions that define 'gothic' on fiction. --Tangerineduel 14:45, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Reads too much like an essay
A lot of work and care has gone into this article, but it still feels like an essay, or a work of general film criticism, to me. The first honest-to-God reference that's actually relevant to this wiki doesn't happen until the second section. I honestly think you could keep the first paragraph (well, sentence), cut grafs 2-4, and then launch into "Doctor Who TV Gothic". Lots of the rest of the article could be cut, as well. I think any graf that's not focused like a laser on Doctor Who and its sister programs should be gone. It doesn't matter to us what Jerrold E. Hogle thinks gothic is; it matters what Terrance Dicks thinks it is. The article totally fails to deliver a simple definition of "gothic story" from any resource valid to this wiki.
I think, too, that the article loses focus at the end where it confuses "gothic" and "horror" for the same thing. You're flat-out wrong to say that "in looking at the "gothic", it's also necessary to look at the role that horror also plays in the formulation of gothic stories". No it's not. The article is about "gothic stories", not "gothic horror stories". Keep on topic and the article will be miles better.
Also, some of the sources are, well, dubious at best. TVTropes? Seriously? That's not valid; that's like saying wikipedia is a valid resource. Just because it's not a Wikia wiki doesn't mean it's not just another wiki. And Kasterberous? That's just a blog, as is cathoderaytube. There are a few good sources in the reference section, but most of it doesn't pass muster.
This article just needs to simplify, get better sources, and stay on track. The article must be able to answer the question "What is a gothic story?" with valid DW sources, or there's simply no need for it.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍ <span style="">00:28:05 Mon 27 Jun 2011
