Wikipedia:Peer review/The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve it for a possible FA run.
Thanks, Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
Background
I believe a slight description of Potter's success with her first six books would make the article a better piece; otherwise, for readers less familiar with her circumstance would know of her simply as a successful writer, and not the creator of Peter Rabbit.
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Composition and publication
As the two ideas are placed together in the last paragraph, I am not too sure how Potter's remark of her similarity with a 1940 illustration of Jemima relates to her restraint with Aris. The disconnect between the two is quite big in my view.
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Concepts separated into different paragraphs. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Merchandising
The same here for how would the addled eggs (what is addled?) relate to kittens replaced by ducklings.
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Critical response
Some parts seem more like they should be in a Themes section (since they describe the themes rather than critical responses to these themes or such). In the end, the section seems more like a Critical analysis than response.
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Section renamed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Adaptations
Anyway to integrate this section into others, or can the content here be substianted further? Right now, it looks more like a list of trivia: basically, this was printed, that was made and such.
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Section removed. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Images
Not a fault of the article's primary editor, but File:Beatrix Potter1.jpg (the image in the navbox below) will certainly be a failing point if brought to FAC; no date, no source, no author, so what proves it is PD-old?
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Overall, a well-written article, but some ideas seem scattered and not grouped very well (organisation). I think the above questions could help point to further improvement. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above issues were addressed, but I have some more thoughts of the article's current state. There are some very short paragraphs in Composition and publication (I think as a result of resolving my above concerns). I think the section should be re-examined to see if these can be merged with others of a common theme, expanded, or eliminated. The effect of these short paragraphs gives a "list-y" feel, especially if a short paragraph is of a theme disconnected with its surrounding paragraphs. I think once this is resolved, the article will be in fine shape for FAC. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Done Susanne2009NYC (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)