Talk:The Snowman (fairy tale)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Criterion 1: well-written

Mostly well-written. In general, the writing could be tightened and word choices improved. Some examples:

• the tale has been described as lyrical and poignant, and a complement to Andersen's "The Fir-Tree" of December 1844 could be the tale ... a lyrical and poignant complement
  • This has been changed, according to your suggestion. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Andersen's sexuality has excited modern comment - is excited the best word here? In context, it sounds salacious (or is that just me?) Unless the reviewers are truly prurient (and you have a source to back that up), I'd change to "has been the subject of much comment" or some more neutral.
  • I've altered the sentence, incorporating your recommendation. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• a virgin who utilised masturbation could be a virgin who masturbated - if we even need to keep this; see more below re: scope of article
  • I've used your suggestion here. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• In 1857, Andersen was returning to Copenhagen following a visit to Charles Dickens in England when he met the handsome twenty-one-year-old ballet dancer Harald Scharff and the young man's twenty-eight-year-old Copenhagen housemate, the Danish actor Lauritz Eckardt in Paris - did he meet Scharf in Copenhagen, or on the way; if the latter, how so? Or did they meet in Paris?
  • Andersen and Scharff first met in Paris. The source gives no further details. I've rewritten the sentence to claify. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• He returned to Copenhagen in November morosely and spent Christmas at Basnæs "morosely" seems awkwardly placed here
  • I've dropped "morosely". Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• gifted Scharff with could be gave Scharff
  • I've adopted your suggestion. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• etc. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

OK here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

• (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic The article cites only a few sources re: "The Snowman"; The History of the Snowman Bob Eckstein (available via Google Books) discusses the tale and contains information which contradicts some of the info in the article - it should be in the article too.
  • I've brought Eckstein's researches to the article. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• And thank you for the tip! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style) Most of the article is about Andersen's sexuality; the connection between his love for Scharff and the fairy tale is only drawn briefly, and thus (unless there are sources that discuss this connection in greater detail) Andersen's sexuality is largely out of the purview of this article. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering if condensing the entire Background section into one paragraph and ending it with the publication of the tale would be the thing to do? Andersen's relationship with Scharff following the publication could be briefly summarized in a note. I wrote the article Harald Scharff in conjuction with this article and think the Background section in all its detail should be moved there in a "Scharff and Andersen" section. I'll put my plan into action and look forward to your recommendations! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The material on Andersen's sexuality is indeed out of the purview of this article and has been moved tto Hans Christian Andersen where a section on his sexuality has been established. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

The article is neutral in the sense that it presents different POVs at different times; however, the lead and the background section discuss Andersen's homosexuality and love life in some detail, details which are contradicted in the last "Commentaries" section (e.g., The only evidence supporting an affirmative answer to the question seems to be a "literal reading of the often overheated language of the nineteenth century" does not fit with such earlier statements as "In the winter of 1861–62, the two men entered a full-blown love affair that brought Andersen "joy, some kind of sexual fulfillment and a temporary end to loneliness.") NPOV requires a balanced presentation of a given issue throughout, not a contradictory one. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've reworked the material with the focus on the tale rather than controversy about Andersen's sexuality. Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

OK here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Good here. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On hold

I'll come back in a week and see what changes have been made. Ricardiana (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello - the changes you've made look great. The article is much improved. My remaining concerns are:

• There are some statements that need references, for instance, the assertion that critics generally consider Andersen's stories to be rooted in his homosexuality. Could you add a footnote listing the names of some of these critics?
• Right now, the transition from "Plot summary" to "Andersen and Scharff" is a bit abrupt. I think this could be handled with a bit of re-organization - perhaps something like this:

1. Plot summary
2. Background (introducing the connection between this relationship and story, with citation)

1. Andersen and Scharff
2. Commentaries

Will check in again soon. Again, good work! Ricardiana (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. And congratulations on your GA! Ricardiana (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)