Talk:The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I enjoyed reading the article and I started the review fully expecting to promote but I have come across a problem which I will get to at the end. First, I shall detail a few more minor issues that can be dealt with.

General

 * Lead
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section needs to adequately summarise the rest of the article. I don't feel that it does at the moment. There is certainly more of the analysis that could be summarised in the lead, and perhaps more of the composition section.
 * I've expanded the lead. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead should also not introduce material that is not mentioned later. The mention of the Winnie the Pooh tale imitating this one needs to be expanded on in the main article body.
 * I've sent this to a note. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Composition and publication
 * It might be nice to specify that Hill Top Farm is in Cumbria (or rather the whichever county it was in at the time. Lancashire?)
 * Have done this. it was in Lancashire (now Cumbria as of 1974). Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not clear why writing a tale about a pig would be more demanding and time consuming than writing this one about a squirrel. Can that be clarified or expanded on at all?
 * Nothing on this. I suspect Potter simply couldn't get her bearings or opted to exploit the American market with an American tale and dropped the pig story. I deleted the passage. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis
 * "it doesn't work" - try to avoid contractions
 * Deleted and reworded passage. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Adaptations
 * This is a very short section. Can it be expanded on at all? Would it be better combined with another section? it needs to be referenced. I'm also not sure about the heading - are they really adaptations?
 * I've deleted this section. There appears to be no dramatic adaptations of the tale, and the porcelain figurines are sourced to ebay but perhaps may be found in a Beswick collectibles sort of book (if one exists). I'm not going to pursue this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Broadness
 * Is there no information on how the book was received at the time of publication? We have critical analysis here, but it all seems to be from the late 20th century onwards.
 * My sources have been very thorough in recording contemporary reviews on Potter's works but none of the sources has recorded anything on this book. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would't be possible to have a little bit more background at the beginning of the "Composition and publication" section? Like, at what point in her career was Potter? Was she already a successful writer?
 * Yes, I like this sort of thing but some don't, so I didn't develop it here. I'll work on this. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, opinion varies. I think it's abut getting the balance right between duplicating what's said in other articels, and providing enough context for the reader. I wouldn't expect too much detail about Potter herself necessarily, but just enough to place the book in the context of her career.

Paraphrasing
Now here is my biggest concern. Looking at the "Analysis" section, I read:
 * "In Timmy Tiptoes, Potter was thinking first of her audience and then of her story—an order of priorities usually fatal for an author."

My first thought was that that sounds like original research and needs to say who has said this. When I looked at the source for the paragraph, I was able to look at it on google books, and I see that the original has the sentence:
 * "In both Fierce Bad Rabbit and Timmy Tiptoes, Potter is thinking of audience first and story second, which is generally fatal to a writer."

This has been reworded, but I'm concerned that it's too closely paraphrased, and although you've cited the source, you have stated it as fact, you haven't said who ' s opinion this is. Reading further, we have some more close paraphrasing:
 * In her preoccupation with North American animals, she lost control of both the illustrations and the story. (Wikipedia)
 * In Timmy Tiptoes her preoccupation with North American animals led her to lose control first of the plot and then of the illustrations.(Kutzer)


 * The book has touches of the pourquoi tale in its investigation of why squirrels gather nuts and what happens when they hibernate. (Wikipedia)
 * In some ways the plot can be seen as a kind of pourquoi story in which we get an explanation of why squirrels hide nuts and what happens when they hibernate. (Kutzer)


 * "In this way, the tale bears some similarities to Potter's earlier scuirid story, The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin, which explains how squirrels gather nuts and why one little red squirrel in particular has no tail. Both tales, too, employ rhymes and riddles but those in Squirrel Nutkin provide an amusing game for the child reader and shed light on Nutkin's character..." (Wikipedia)
 * "There is a connection to the first of Potter's squirrel books, The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin, which gives the reader an explanation of how a particular squirrel lost his tail and of how squirrel collect nuts for the winter. The two squirrel books further share a preoccupation with rhymes and riddles... The riddles in the first squirrel book add up to an amusing game for the child reader and also illuminate Nutkin's character..." (Kutzer)

To me, they bear too close a resemblance. I don't have access to any of the other sources used, so I am a little worried that there will be the same problem throughout. As I don't have much experience with this issue on Wikipedia, I'm going to ask for a second opinion.-- Beloved Freak  13:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done considerable revision on the entire article to avoid this. I'm satisfied at this point but will continue checking sources against the article. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, good work. I'm happy that the paraphrasing issue has been resolved, and happy to pass it as a GA. Well done! -- Beloved Freak  19:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! I'm thrilled the article passed! And thank you very much for taking the time to review. I've learned a lot from the review process! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. Just be careful in future not to paraphrase too closely. It's sometimes better to read as much as you can about it, go away and do something else and then sit down and write what you know, adding in the citations afterwards. It helps to get it more into your own words and your own flow.-- Beloved Freak  14:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)