Talk:Tom's Midnight Garden

Fair use rationale for Image:PhilippaPearce TomsMidnightGarden.jpg
Image:PhilippaPearce TomsMidnightGarden.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * by the image contributor later in the same day. It's more superficial than most. --P64 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Age
Children's books can be for a variety of ages. Would it be worthwhile adding somewhere in this article whether this book is for three or ten year old children for instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.1.168 (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly we may and probably we should say that (CILIP) --in effect, the British children's librarians?-- assigned it "age range 10+" in 2007. (That is one link removed from [ref name=topten].)
 * By the way, their age recommendations for their top ten Medal-winning works (1936–2005) are "age range 6+" at minimum and "age range 14+" at maximum, with 10+ the norm matched by five of the ten books. --P64 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
Hello. New user here. I removed a piece of criticism by Ward Bradley which seemed totally non-notable to me. I understand wikipedia strives for balance, but it seems bizarre to spend equal space (of very little used) on positive and negative criticial reception to the book, when that is not at all representative of the aggregate opinion. This is well reflected by the fact that the positive opinion is quite notable, and a - as far as I can tell - no name criticism was dug up for the negative opinion. So, yes, the comment was factual and verifiable, but misleading, unrepresentative, and not noteworthy. It appears it has gone back and forth in the editing more than once, so hopefully my edit is not inappropriate. Regards. Nobodypurposeful (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That negative criticism by Ward Bradley is in the article (back again?). I also doubt its notability on the joint grounds [1] the reference is unusually poor and [2] I don't readily find identify/hit either "Ward Bradley" or "Literary Depictions of Victorian Britain". Those grounds do not directly concern notability but the need for a reference is acute.
 * The next reference in sequence sequence is worse, simply "Varsity, Issue Number 689." (and the markup Varsity is mine). Probably the issue has a date; the item a title and page, maybe even an author.
 * I have tagged both of them --currently refs 8 and 9).
 * Hello - I'm not versed in reference formatting on here but it's on p6 of this issue of Varsity: http://archive.varsity.co.uk/689.pdf which is from 6 February 2009. Will come back when I've got a moment and put it into the article properly when I've looked at how, else feel free to, whoever's reading 87.194.30.190 (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The obituary of Pearce [ref name=tucker] includes Nicholas Tucker's own four-paragraph review of the novel.
 * The recent retrospective review [ref name=townsend2011] by John Rowe Townsend is likely to be useful. The now-complex citation of Written for Children may be improved by checking the latest edition to pair that (rather than the second U.S. edition, 1983) with the first edition (1965). See "Formats and editions of Written for children" (WorldCat).
 * --P64 (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom's Midnight Garden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070108183155/http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2097792.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/people/obituaries/article2097792.ece
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130107093451/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/livingarchive/title.php?id=99 to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/livingarchive/title.php?id=99
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161027022418/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/celebration/top_tens.php?action=list to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/celebration/top_tens.php?action=list

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)