Talk:The Tinderbox/GA1

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will enter my comments below. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * This article falls apart at the "Analysis" section. This section appears to be a mixture of Andersen's motivations, his biography, general history of the fairy tale and critical response.
 * WELL WHAT DO YOU THINK ANALYSIS IS?
 * Further, the blue quotebox is off to the left. And I am unsure why, if it is to represent a page from Andersen's diary, it has footnote citations in it.
 * DELETED BLUE BOX AND CITATIONS.ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not proper sections delineating important aspects
 * LIKE WHAT IMPORTANT ASPECTS? ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of the huge popularity and publication history in English, and probably other languages, in the 20th century. A significant portion of its history appears missing, as the history appears to stop in the 1850s. The publication history is a sliver of the actuality.
 * THE FIRST ENGLISH PUBLICATION DATE IS MENTIONED. TRACKING ALL THE PUBLICATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS IS IMPRACTICAL AND WOULD PROVE NOTHING. ALL THE PUBLICATIONS, VARIOUS EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS AND ILLUSTRATORS WOULD HAVE TO BE SOURCED IN SECONDARY PUBLICATIONS AND THEY ARE NOT LIKELY TO COME FORTH. BESIDES SUCH A HISTORY IS NOT REQUIRED AT GA.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
 * The "Critical response" likewise stops abruptly shortly after its publication and is no where near complete.
 * IT'S COMPLETE REGARDING THIS ONE LITTLE TALE. THERE ARE NO MOUNTAINS OF REVIEWS ON THIS ONE LITTLE TALE.

b (MoS): Table of context does not represent the material WHAT?
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Prose is mixed up and not clearly focused
 * LIKE WHAT? LIKE WHERE?
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.

b (citations to reliable sources): What is there is likely reliable but a significant number are not consulted c (OR): No OR THIS IS ABOUT ONE LITTLE FAIRY TALE -- NOT FAIRY TALES IN GENERAL. IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO INCLUDE SUCH A SECTION. PERHAPS A REDIRECT TO "MAIN ARTICLE FAIRY TALES" WOULD BE THE BEST THING TO DO. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC) b (focused): Remains focused on subject Regretfully, I must fail this article. Not only is the article poorly written, much more research needs to go into the article to assess its cultural impact. You have covered nothing after the 1850s and you have neglected the impact in other countries, for the most part. If you feel this assessment is in error you may submit the article to Good article reassessment or resubmit the article to Good article nominations. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a (references): Does not refer to a significant body of literature on the subject
 * THERE IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT BODY OF LITERATURE ON THIS ONE LITTLE TALE. WHAT THERE IS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. COMMENTATORS REPEAT EACH OTHER. THERE ARE NO SURPRISES. EVERYTHING KNOWN ABOUT THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN STATED SO THERE'S NO REASON TO CONSULT MORE THAN TWO OR THREE GOOD RELIABEL SOURCES. THIS IS NOT THE BIBLE, THE COMPLETE SHAKESPEARE OR HOMER WHERE SOURCES CAN BE WRAPPED AROUND THE MOON TEN TIMES. THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE LITTLE TALE.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Does not set broad context of fairy tales
 * a (major aspects): Does not set broad context of fairy tales
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * DELETED IMAGES AS TOO MUCH OF A HASSLE TO BOTHER WITH.ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): The reason for the illustration of the text in the fair use rationale (the complexity of the writing) is not mentioned in the article b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): The reason for the illustration of the text in the fair use rationale (the complexity of the writing) is not mentioned in the article b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * AND PRAY TELL WHERE WOULD ANYONE FIND SUCH INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ONE LITTLE TALE? I'VE WORKED WITH THE RESEARCH OF A DEAN OF HUMANITIES AT HARVARD AND THE MOST CURRENT ANDERSEN BIOGRAPHY FROM THE CHICAGO UNIVERSITY PRESS AND THE WORK OF TWO CELEBRATED SCHOLARS IONA AND PETER OPIE. NO ONE MENTIONS THE "IMPACT" OF THIS ONE LITTLE TALE IN WORLD CULTURE. THERE IS NONE. IT'S HAD NO IMPACT. IT'S NOT MY FAULT AND THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE FAILED BECAUSE THE BEST SCHOLARS HAVE NOT TAKEN THE "IMPACT" ISSUE ON. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS BASICALLY WELL WRITTEN (EVERY ARTICLE CAN USE A LITTLE COPYEDITING ANYWAY) AND A WORLD VIEW IS IMPRACTICAL. THERE'S SIMPLY NO SIGNIFICANT RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCES TO TAKE ON A WORLD VIEW OF THE THIS ONE LITTLE TALE. AS YOU MENTIONED I USED THE VERY BEST MATERIALS IN COMPOSING THE ARTICLE: THE RESEARCHES OF A DEAN OF HUMANITIES AT HARVARD AND AN ANDERSEN BIOGRAPHER, ART CORRESPONDENT AND LITERARY CRITIC WITH THE LONDON FINANCIAL TIMES. THEIR WORK DOES NOT TRACK SUCH INFORMATION. WHY SHOULD IT? WHY WOULD A DEAN AT HRAVARD BE TRACKING DOWN EVERY SINGLE EDITION OF THE TINDERBOX IN RUSSIA, JAPAN, HOLLAND, NIGERIA, CANADA ETC.? THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE FAILED BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SOURCES ON A WORLD VIEW. THAT'S NOT MY FAULT. A WORLD VIEW IS NOT REQUIRED OF LITERATURE ARTICLES AT GA ANYWAY. THAT'S FA STUFF. GA DOESN'T ASK US TO BE EXHAUSTIVE. PLENTY OF ARTICLES HAVE PASSED AT GA WITHOUT TAKING A WORLD VIEW OF THE TOPIC. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tinderbox
I am surprised and disappointed with this review. The article could have/should have/might have been placed "on hold" for improvements to have been made rather than summarily dismissed with "Fail". I have some issues with the reasons for failing the article and I think those could have been addressed with the reviewer in an "on hold" period. I wish I had been "given a chance".

I'm sending the article back to GA with the hope of having a reviewer "work with me" on improving the article rather than summarily dismissing it. If this is something a reviewer cannot do or does not want to do, I think it best that a reviewer remove himself from the article rather than dismissing it "Fail". The reviewer should give the editor an opportunity to improve an article during an "on hold" period before dismising it as "Fail". ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend that you improve it before you resubmit it. It is not fair to reviewers to present them with an article that needs massive work. It discourages reviewers from wanting to put effort into articles, if the editor is not willing to improve his article before resubmission. It puts the burden on the reviewer, in my opinion, to basically write the article for you. Please try to help the article yourself before you engage another reviewer. It is not the reviewer's job to do this for you. Please do more research on the cultural impact of Andersen and this fairytale to put the article in context. Please explore the themes of the fairytale more thoroughly. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 12:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * IN YOUR OPINION THIS ARTICLE NEEDS "MASSIVE WORK." IT DOES NOT. THERE IS NOT A MOUNTAIN OF MATERIAL OUT THERE ABOUT THIS ONE LITTLE TALE. THE BEST SCHOLARS MENTION NO CULTURAL IMPACT OR THEMES OR A WORLD VIEW OF THE TALE. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A QUEER THEORY OR FEMINIST INTERPRETATION YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR A LONG TIME BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE. IF YOU HAD DISCUSSED THIS DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS WE MIGHT HAVE AVOIDED A FAIL. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ON AN ARTICLE IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO WORK WITH THE EDITOR ON IMPROVING IT. SUMMARILY DISMISSING AN ARTICLE WITH 'FAIL' BEFORE CONTACTING THE EDITOR FOR A DISCUSSION IS UNCIVIL. IT'S JUST PLAIN RUDE. YOU'VE DAMAGED THIS ARTICLE FOR ANY OTHER REVIEWER WILLING TO LOOK AT IT. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)