Talk:Jaws (novel)

Additions requests

This needs

• a Plot section. (Jaws (film) has a "Plot" section and a "Differences from the novel" section.)
• Some sources credit Frank Mundus as inspiration for Quint (Jaws character), which Benchley denied.
• Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916#cite_ref-69 says that was a basis for the novel+film.

jnestorius^(talk) 23:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The article does need a plot section. Actually, the film article shouldn't have a "Differences from the novel" section, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Adaptations. Some differences can be rewitten with real-world information, though most will be lost as trivial. As for the Jersey Shore attacks... well, the ref you point out is a direct quote from the film. None of the sources I've consulted for the novel article cite it as inspiration. The 1964 story is consistently used, importantly by Benchley himself. The JPS^{talk to me} 09:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the wikilinked ref is #70, even though the anchor tag is #69; it's to three books, not the film. jnestorius^(talk) 18:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources, then fair enough to give them some coverage, although the author's voice on what inspired him should be given precedence over third hand accounts. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at addressing this -- what do you think? The JPS^{talk to me} 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No plot page will be needed. As this page already does have a plot section. - BurbankCA (talk)/_{contributions} 12:51 28, March 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, a plot will need adding to this article. There are some differences to the film's narrative too. Article should work as standalone entities. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jaws (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 06:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Initial thoughts: though in general I think you cover a number of different pieces of information of note for the article, there are a few significant gaps, which would make the article immediately not pass GA (it needs to cover the "main aspects" of the topic):

• the article hardly discusses the film adaptation. Typically, an article that discusses a book that was later adapted summarizes the key information from about the film in a section of its own; see for example, Divergent_(novel)#Film_adaptation, The_French_Lieutenant's_Woman#Legacy. or Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone#Legacy. Jaws led to a successful franchise: lacking discussion of that franchise is a serious gap. Most of that work is done for you on the Jaws (film) page: read the sources, pick the best information about the legacy/franchise, and summarize it in brief (how did the film do? who starred in it? What types of awards/response was created? Did it spawn merchandise and subsequent works?) In literary studies, the legacy of a work in its adaptations is absolutely critical to its value.
• literary devices: theme, style, genre etc are missing; There is plenty of scholarship about the novel ( see the Google Scholar search), which suggests to me that their should be significant treatment of concepts like themes, style and genre and literary antecedents and precedents: What intertextual relationships are there between Jaws and works like Moby Dick? What themes pop up elsewhere in the scholarship? Why are they important to the novel? This doesn't have to be exhaustive (that would be FA) but at the very least, I would imagine concepts like Man vs. Nature and the perception and depiction of the non-human to be of interest thematically. How does the book relate to the thriller/horror genre? How does it push those boundaries stylistically? Both the reception and conception sections begin to cover these topics, but don't do so sufficiently to be considered covering these for this novel.

I have yet to do a close read for clarity/information organization/delivery, but I figure that any research to build up these two kinds of conversation, will lead to an expanded coverage in already developed sections. I will probably do a first pass later in the week. If you need help getting access to any research materials (especially scholarly ones) I have full access to a university research library, so should be able to supplement open access resources with almost anything (or get it through inter-library loan). Let me know via Special:EmailUser and I will email the sources to you if I have access to them through a database or when they come into a request. If you don't think you can do these revisions/expansion: let me know, and I will close the GA nomination as a fail. Thank you for the great work Sadads (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I split the adaptation section from the publication one (while merging reception), see if it's at least a start. igordebraga ≠ 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Many apologies for not rersponding sooner: that is a great start: the summary is very good, and the move to split the reception from the film, allows a better focus on some really important information! However, I am still thinking that a successful GA version of this article needs to cover the work better than a "conception, plot, reception" model of describing the work, especially considering the breadth of scholarship available about it. I would suggest looking at models like Divergent_(novel)#Themes, The_Great_Lover_(novel)#Style and The_French_Lieutenant's_Woman#Themes, which do good at beginning to highlight some of the major structural and thematic issues important to those particular jobs. More generally, if you are looking for ideal models for literary works, you could compare with Featured articles on the topic, for example,Pattern_Recognition_(novel)#Style_and_story_elements does a really good job surveying works' characteristics as a literary object. Sadads (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Expanded as much as I could, tried writing a "style" section, see if it's enough. igordebraga ≠ 19:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: No worries: I have been very busy too. I am not awake enough to be doing close detail/revisions/copyediting issues right now. I will come through soon. If you don't see me making comments by next Thursday, ping me here on the page so that I remember to come back: I have a ton of things moving right now. My initial review of your edits see it as a great improvement. My first instincts say I might ask for some restructuring, but I want to come back to the page with a more open/awake mind. Sadads (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I am doing a copyedit pass: there are some significant wordiness/long sentence problems that make the communication unclear. Please review the changes I make for clarity of meaning within the original intentions. Also, I am leaving specific concerns in the sections below, Sadads (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Igordebraga:I have left some more specific concerns: most of them are surface items, except for the "Themes and influences" section. The revisions you have made thus far, have created a miles better article! Keep up the great work! Please let me know if any of the points below need to be clarified,Sadads (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Organization, quality of narrative and focus, and sourcing all check out pretty well. I would recommend focusing on a few of the finer details below:

Plot

• "Hendricks pulls a massive shark's tooth from one of the holes. " - is this a necessary plot detail?  Fixed
• Please fix the passive issue that I note with the Template:To Whom.  Fixed
• Although I cannot currently locate my copy of the novel and thus cannot provide the necessary citation, I believe the plot summary is incorrect regarding a sexual encounter between Ellen and Matt Hooper. They do go to lunch, and during that time, they make a fantasy about a sexual encounter, which imagines a motel where the rooms are separate cottages so they can have privacy for as loud as they might be. Ellen thinks strongly about this, figuring that what he calls a "fantasy" is really something he intends to do, but to the best of my recollection, nothing actually does happen between them. Brody later confronts Hooper about his whereabouts the day of the lunch, and he tells Brody he went to a motel with Daisy Wicker from the dinner party (whom Brody knows to be a lesbian, so he knows this is untrue). But the situation, as far as I can recall, ends there -- and ends permanently when Hooper is killed. Jsamans (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Development

• "taking pictures of the ones lying on easels for cleaning." is this a neccessary detail: I am not able to picture this very well.... I would suggest cutting.  Fixed
• The two paragraphs in the Themes and Influence section don't make a lot of sense: they feel like a very random series of topics: the first talks about process in a way similar to the first paragraph of the development section and the second paragraph talks about intertextuality, literary style, genre and others. I am thinking some of the discussions of these topics could be expanded just based on the reviews you have in the review section, such as the comparison with other texts and the effectiveness of the horror/thriller/etc style/genre concerns in other parts of the reviews, and brought into greater concentration.  Fixed

Film section

• You mention a change of location, but you don't point to where (something you can draw from the article Jaws (film). )  Not fixed
• Also, you talk alot about the script writing and Spielburgs involvement, but don't talk at all about the stars in the film. You emphasize the importance of changing characterization, in part this is something that is closely tied to who played the characters, I would think.  Fixed

Citations

• "Benchley, Peter, "A Look Inside Jaws", produced by Laurent Bouzereau, available as a bonus feature on some laserdisc and DVD releases of Jaws" - missing a period at the end, and you need to cite which version of the DVD that was used, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, before the note where you note other locations its available.  Fixed
  • Ditto concern for note 9  Fixed
• Many of the other citations are missing a period at the end of the citation, please make sure all are added (this is a standard feature of all footnote Citations styles I am aware of.  Fixed
• Be consistent on how you do the "p./pp." items in the page citations some don't have spaces between the number and the p indicator.  Fixed
• Missing accessdates from about half of the internet sources (this is a requirement any time we provide a digital citation. Please update, even if they are sources that were originally published in newspapers) You can update with todays date if you can still access the same source. {{done}
• 8 has the title of the item in all caps: please put it in standard capitalizations. Also, its using different punctuation than the others (semicolons and colons).  Fixed

Images

• Rights check out for everything: do you want to include the paperback cover image in the Title and Cover section, since its an item of commentary? It would meet Fair use.  Fixed

Final thoughts

Done what I could, see if anything else is needed. igordebraga ≠ 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The only thing lingering is the filming location concern I mention, which you should be able to draw from the film page, otherwise the last bit of revisions are look great! I took a look at the the diff and wow what a change! Great job! I hope this was a useful experience, I personally really like strong GA reviews with good constructive feedback, because it always feels like the article improves by leaps and bounds. I would strongly recommend thinking more about the themes and style section, seeing if you can tease out more of the opinions of critics to support a deeper discussion, but that shouldn't be an impediment to getting GA. I will be looking forward to that last fix, Sadads (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, added where specifically in New England Jaws was filmed. Think it's done now. igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It seemed like a really important detail, that didn't require extra research (you describe it as a fundamental element of the adaptation's changes). Everything looks great! Approving, and moving up class! Thanks for the great review (and you should consider nominating it for WT:DYK: I am sure it would do really well, and is a great way to show off all the great work! Sadads (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaws (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913189-3,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)