Wikipedia:Peer review/The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse[edit]

Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I want to work this article up to FA level and need your input. I'm especially concerned about the lead, and "brilliant prose". Suggestions to improve the article for FA are wanted! This book is a children's tale about insect pests in the home and with the recent infestations of bedbugs here and there it should stimulate interest.

Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment - since The Story of Miss Moppet looks like it is ready to be promoted at FAC, I would look carefully at that as a model article for this and all other Beatrix Potter story articles. I also worry about the copyright status of the images not published in the original. This may be worth getting an image review before FAC. Good luck, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments:


In general, the prose flows well and is pleasant to read. Don't get too hung up about the "brilliant prose" criterion; what is brilliant to one reviewer may be commonplace to another. All you can do is ensure clarity and grammatical correctness, and avoid overlong or repetitive phrasing. I think you have managed this. I do have a couple of particular prose points, however:-

  • Some of the phrasing and spelling is definitely AmEng, which reads oddly when the subject is so quintessentially Edwardian English. For example, in Britain we would write "wrote to a friend", or "wrote to the Warne children"; we would write "offence" not "offense". My reading of WP:TIES is that an article discussing the works of a British writer should use British prose conventions.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Avoid the use of contractions (e.g. "doesn't") in the prose; they are not encyclopedic.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


At present the lead does not fulfil the requirement of WP:LEAD to provide an overview of the complete article. For example, the lead at present does not cover either development stages of the book, or the scholarly commentaries. The rule is that everything of significance in the article needs to be touched on in the lead.

 Done Expanded. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Development and publication

Personally I doubt the need for the text comparisons that occupy a large part of this section. It is not as though the changes of phrasing are earth-shatteringly different; surely, every book ever written differs to some extent from its initial notebook form? I found these extracts distracting, and don't feel they add anything of great value.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception?

You have plenty of information on scholarly commentary, but what about reactions to the book when it was first published? What did the critics, and the public, say then? What about some practical information about sales volume, number of editions etc?

 Done No contemporary reviews of Potter's books found. They are 100 years old. Info about number of copies released has been entered. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • These are generally delightful, though I don't think two depictions of the books cover (first edition and deluxe) are really necessary.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Some of the illustrations were, I thought, a little too large for their sections. I have reduced them using "upright"; please restore to their former sizes if you are not happy with that.

 Done Fine with me. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pleas take note of Ruhrfisch's point, above, about the copyright status of the images not published in the original.

 Done These have been removed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • It may well be that as works of art, they are old enough to be free. Or it might be that one or both could be justified under WP:FAIR USE Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I am no copyright expert, but UK law for art seems to be life of the artist plus 70 years. I liked the Manylegs illustration, and can see it being justified under fair use (one does not think of Beatrix Potter painting such creepy crawlies), but that is your call. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Some nitpicks
  • Hill Top links to a disambiguation page.

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Ref 35 says Dubay (DuBay)

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Page ranges should have dashes not hyphens

 Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Altogether, this is an agreeable article that, after attention, I shall be pleased to see at FAC. If you wish to raise any issues from this review, please contact my talkpage as I am not able to watch individual peer reviews at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments A delight to read. I see no reason why it shouldn't pass FAC with flying colours. A handful of what look like typos:

  • "The tale is about housekeepeing "
  • "country life were nutured"
  • "Potter's adolescene"
  • "assumed a presumputuous familiarity"
  • "granted licencing rights" (should be licensing: participle of the verb "license" – not derived from the noun "licence")
  • "granted licencing rights" (again)
  • and as you are writing this in UK English, "ageing" is the usual English form. ("Aging" is not technically wrong but is hardly ever seen)

 Done Thank you for reading so closely! I'm embarrassed when others catch my typos because I try to do that myself before listing an article for review. Thank you again! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC). Tim riley (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  • A great pleasure. Other people's typos are always easier to spot than one's own. Do let me know when you have this up for FAC. (I am not in the least biased by the fact that my family home is in hailing distance of Sawrey.) Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)