The Velveteen Rabbit received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section is tough to figure out (per the current version, 01.01.14). The language is convoluted (I guess someone with ESL wrote this draft?) but also imprecise. On my first read-through I read it as:
That was my first read-through, and just the first para. I'm sure that reading isn't right, so I did do a quick check through some old versions in the History. A version from 2011 is the most recent that sounds familiar and doesn't seem open to multiple interpretation...
But I haven't read the book, so I am not suited to edit this section. Could someone learned pitch in? Smittee ( talk) 09:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
huh, that's so true, i just ran across this story again and checked the article becauase what i had read had the velveteen rabbit turn into a real one when i was so sure that the kid had died and the toy burned. Anyone else have memories of this? From what the article says, it's pretty common.-- orphan frequently 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought he was burned too... weird. I'll have to reread the original sometime. 71.77.207.50 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The story section of this article really needs to be moved to Wikisource instead of being here. I don't know how to do it though. Any know?-- Jackyd101 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a new Velveteen Rabbit movie coming out in February of 2009, I'm interested to see the book to movie conversion. Any thoughts? rebecca ( talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I read it as a child, and could never read it again (until just now) because it is so obvious what ACTUALLY happened, as opposed to what the story SAYS happened. Of course the Velveteen Rabbit was actually burned up after the Boy recovered from scarlet fever--although the Boy didn't die. WordwizardW ( talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic chat
|
---|
|
I just scanned and uploaded an image of the cover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VelveteenRabbitCover.PNG DragonSparke 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to comment above, but "rebecca" who commented above is a marketing tool used by Feature Films for Families to promote and market their products so everything associated with her should be considered questionable for encylopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craisingoldfish ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall hearing that the original printed version of this story supposedly held a code for buried treasure. True? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of Masquerade (book). Lisiate ( talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
I just got called from 917-210-4609, promoting the upcoming movie release. Apparently, I'm not the only one, according to http://whocalled.us/lookup/9172104609. I suspect this kind of violation of US law might be encyclopedic, at least to talk about popular culture and mistakes people make. --04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It does not belong in this article because it has nothing to do with the book. Either create a separate article for the movie or put it in an article about telemarketing. 71.109.160.33 ( talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
Really? Are you sure it doesn't just "tell" the story? rowley ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The Velveteen Rabbit received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section is tough to figure out (per the current version, 01.01.14). The language is convoluted (I guess someone with ESL wrote this draft?) but also imprecise. On my first read-through I read it as:
That was my first read-through, and just the first para. I'm sure that reading isn't right, so I did do a quick check through some old versions in the History. A version from 2011 is the most recent that sounds familiar and doesn't seem open to multiple interpretation...
But I haven't read the book, so I am not suited to edit this section. Could someone learned pitch in? Smittee ( talk) 09:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
huh, that's so true, i just ran across this story again and checked the article becauase what i had read had the velveteen rabbit turn into a real one when i was so sure that the kid had died and the toy burned. Anyone else have memories of this? From what the article says, it's pretty common.-- orphan frequently 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought he was burned too... weird. I'll have to reread the original sometime. 71.77.207.50 07:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
The story section of this article really needs to be moved to Wikisource instead of being here. I don't know how to do it though. Any know?-- Jackyd101 12:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a new Velveteen Rabbit movie coming out in February of 2009, I'm interested to see the book to movie conversion. Any thoughts? rebecca ( talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I read it as a child, and could never read it again (until just now) because it is so obvious what ACTUALLY happened, as opposed to what the story SAYS happened. Of course the Velveteen Rabbit was actually burned up after the Boy recovered from scarlet fever--although the Boy didn't die. WordwizardW ( talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic chat
|
---|
|
I just scanned and uploaded an image of the cover. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:VelveteenRabbitCover.PNG DragonSparke 17:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to comment above, but "rebecca" who commented above is a marketing tool used by Feature Films for Families to promote and market their products so everything associated with her should be considered questionable for encylopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craisingoldfish ( talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I recall hearing that the original printed version of this story supposedly held a code for buried treasure. True? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.101.34 ( talk) 23:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you're thinking of Masquerade (book). Lisiate ( talk) 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion
|
---|
I just got called from 917-210-4609, promoting the upcoming movie release. Apparently, I'm not the only one, according to http://whocalled.us/lookup/9172104609. I suspect this kind of violation of US law might be encyclopedic, at least to talk about popular culture and mistakes people make. --04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It does not belong in this article because it has nothing to do with the book. Either create a separate article for the movie or put it in an article about telemarketing. 71.109.160.33 ( talk) 19:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
Really? Are you sure it doesn't just "tell" the story? rowley ( talk) 15:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)