Talk:The Tale of Peter Rabbit

Close paraphrasing check

The article has been checked and close paraphrasing removed as per the following edits:

• Close paraphrase converted to direct quote with in-text attribution: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

• Close paraphrase converted to direct quote: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

copies?

The article says "45 million copies sold", but this source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3014176.stm says "sold more than 150 million copies". That's quite a gap between 45 and 150 million!! An another difference: The article says "translated into 36 languages" and the above-mentioned source says "in 35 languages". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.253.104 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Section Names

The first two sections have no names attributed to them. Perhaps, the first should be called "Synopsis" and the subsequent section "Background". Additionally, the "Contents" do not coincide with how the article is really structured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M. DiNucci (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that. I've fixed it. Truthkeeper (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Critical Commentaries"

Recommend that editors consider whether or not this section should be removed. It serves little to supplement the article, and reads very much like not particularly good undergraduate-writing, which makes somewhat spurious judgments about the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.98.148 (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The Tale of Peter Rabbit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus to close review as keep. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've extended and cited the Publication history (moving the refs out of the lead), and am adding a Reception section now. The Plot section is probably acceptable as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I'm happy to do more if there's anything that people want. I've asked VictoriaEarle if she'd like to join in with any of the text she checked and reworked way back when. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wizardman: VictoriaEarle says she's busy just now but hopes to get back to it someday. I think we have the article covering "the main points" as required for GA so unless there's more that you feel immediately needs doing, we might close this GAR now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

After reading through it, I'm ok with having this closed as keep, so I'll let the GAR coordinators do their thing on it. Wizardman 16:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio checks

Wizardman, I'm massively impressed by the work you've been doing on the ILT CCI. Given what she's done, I'm not terribly bothered to see material go, but I did scrub this article with sources at hand in in these edits. In other words, the material I reworked shouldn't be labled as copyvio. Fwiw. Victoria (tk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Victoria, I've managed to rescue a couple of bits of your text; if you have Lear and other sources to hand, you might like to rescue or redo some more on merchandising, initial production, sales, the copyright saga, and so on? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're absolutely sure that the text is ok then you can restore what you're sure of; the diffs above only show a couple words changed here or there so I didn't think twice about it admittedly. Wizardman 22:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wizardman what was done here is the same as what Ruhrfish and I did on The Story of Miss Moppet. We checked sources, removed sentences or phrases that were direct copies and rewrote. The edit history there is more interesting than here. Here, I wrapped phrases that were copied directly from books in quotations marks and attributed - thus it doesn't look like a lot was done, when in fact it was checked sentence-by-sentence. But I didn't and still don't have access to at least one of the sources, so it wasn't a complete job. The point is that a bunch of edits (around 30 or so, all with descriptive edit summaries vis-a-vis CP) were made to rewrite in 2010, at the time, when working under a lot of harassment; work which has now been labeled as copyvio. All that said, I think I'm in favor of stubifying; just a little annoyed at having wasted time and then being labeled a copyvio offender. Thanks to Chiswick Chap for trying to salvage - Lear is now available on archives.org, but I really am not opposed to having it stubified after thinking about it. I spent lots of time cleaning the ILT mess article by article, (didn't understand how CCI worked at the time, or it may even not have been set up yet) and she harrassed relentlessly for that work, so it's maybe best to move on and unwatch these articles, all these years later. Victoria (tk) 23:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I can understand that side; if there was work noted somewhere where there were articles that were worked on and given a clean bill of health then that was without my knowledge, so apologies for missing that. I don't know if waiting so long to finally "tackle the remaining issues" (for lack of a better term as it's basically me hacksawing what's left) made it better or worse (better since the socking/harassment is as far as I can tell a non-issue now, worse for the reasons you noted above). As an aside though, if there's any other articles you or others remember going through and giving a clean bill of health like Moppet above then I'll at least make a note not to mess with those. Wizardman 23:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have now since re-checked the history and read through your modifications via the edit summaries and I do have a lot more confidence that this article is ok after doing so, so if you want to restore was hasn't already been then that's ok by me. Wizardman 00:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We were working from the lists on User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC. See for instance, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox/Susanne2009NYC #Articles with copyvios identified/removed where this one shows up (I had a different user name then). Basically everything is plagiarized and the actual books have to be found and consulted, which is why it took so much work. Ruhrfisch and I completely reworked The Story of Miss Moppet, at some point it went through FAR so that people know not to run it for TFA, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Story of Miss Moppet/archive1, and the ILT edits were rev-deleted.

As for this article, since Chiswick Chap seems to have rewritten again today, let's just leave it as it is.

As far as the GA is concerned, I have no objections to delisting. Victoria (tk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Victoria, I do have objections to delisting! Given that you have painstakingly checked and reworked the old text, and it's far better than mine, and Wizardman is happy with that, we are completely free to put it back in (and use any bits of mine that yours doesn't cover). I'd be very happy for you to reinsert whatever you like and rearrange the article however you like, if you can bring yourself to do so after all this time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, that's kind of you to say! I can't get to it immediately, but when I'm more active again will take a shot at it. Victoria (tk) 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Copyright or not?

I cannot find in the article the current situation of copyright. According to project Gutenberg, the book is "in public domain in the US", but it does not say "only US". Then, the Wikimedia Commons pages (like this image) says more generally that the book is in public domain in those countries where "the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years." - but then, there is a website where the publisher Frederick Warne & Co. claims they have the copyright on everything. — Now what? A clarification would be useful. -- Lieven (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

All Potter's works are (in 2023) out of copyright. She died in 1943, so on 1 January 2014 all her works became PD in the United Kingdom, and anywhere else with a life + 70 years rule. As the article states, Frederick Warne failed to register US copyright when The Tale of Peter Rabbit was published over there, so it has always been freely copied by other publishers in the US. Warne tried and basically failed to remedy the situation by threatening the other publishers for many years throughout the 20th century, and perhaps they are still trying: or perhaps they just failed to update their website, or indeed are still hoping that unjustified threatening noises may accomplish something for them. But this has little bearing on the current article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)