This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Tale of Peter Rabbit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Tale of Peter Rabbit has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has been checked and close paraphrasing removed as per the following edits:
Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The article says "45 million copies sold", but this source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3014176.stm says "sold more than 150 million copies". That's quite a gap between 45 and 150 million!! An another difference: The article says "translated into 36 languages" and the above-mentioned source says "in 35 languages". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.253.104 ( talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The first two sections have no names attributed to them. Perhaps, the first should be called "Synopsis" and the subsequent section "Background". Additionally, the "Contents" do not coincide with how the article is really structured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M. DiNucci ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Recommend that editors consider whether or not this section should be removed. It serves little to supplement the article, and reads very much like not particularly good undergraduate-writing, which makes somewhat spurious judgments about the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.98.148 ( talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Wizardman, I'm massively impressed by the work you've been doing on the ILT CCI. Given what she's done, I'm not terribly bothered to see material go, but I did scrub this article with sources at hand in in these edits. In other words, the material I reworked shouldn't be labled as copyvio. Fwiw. Victoria ( tk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find in the article the current situation of copyright. According to project Gutenberg, the book is "in public domain in the US", but it does not say "only US". Then, the Wikimedia Commons pages (like this image) says more generally that the book is in public domain in those countries where "the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years." - but then, there is a website where the publisher Frederick Warne & Co. claims they have the copyright on everything. — Now what? A clarification would be useful. -- Lieven ( talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Tale of Peter Rabbit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The Tale of Peter Rabbit has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article has been checked and close paraphrasing removed as per the following edits:
Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The article says "45 million copies sold", but this source http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3014176.stm says "sold more than 150 million copies". That's quite a gap between 45 and 150 million!! An another difference: The article says "translated into 36 languages" and the above-mentioned source says "in 35 languages". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.253.104 ( talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The first two sections have no names attributed to them. Perhaps, the first should be called "Synopsis" and the subsequent section "Background". Additionally, the "Contents" do not coincide with how the article is really structured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M. DiNucci ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Recommend that editors consider whether or not this section should be removed. It serves little to supplement the article, and reads very much like not particularly good undergraduate-writing, which makes somewhat spurious judgments about the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.98.148 ( talk) 07:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Same issue as the others from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime where a sock wrote about 2/3 of the article including all the important stuff, it was passed without a real look at anything, and will require a lot of work to return to GA status. Wizardman 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Given the work done so far and the comments here as well as at the talk page I'm leaning towards withdrawing the GAR, though I'll try and read through the full article first before doing so to be on the safe side. It helps when multiple people who I trust more than many on the site are giving it a clean bill of health. Wizardman 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Wizardman, I'm massively impressed by the work you've been doing on the ILT CCI. Given what she's done, I'm not terribly bothered to see material go, but I did scrub this article with sources at hand in in these edits. In other words, the material I reworked shouldn't be labled as copyvio. Fwiw. Victoria ( tk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I cannot find in the article the current situation of copyright. According to project Gutenberg, the book is "in public domain in the US", but it does not say "only US". Then, the Wikimedia Commons pages (like this image) says more generally that the book is in public domain in those countries where "the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years." - but then, there is a website where the publisher Frederick Warne & Co. claims they have the copyright on everything. — Now what? A clarification would be useful. -- Lieven ( talk) 15:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)