Talk:Tom's Midnight Garden

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:PhilippaPearce TomsMidnightGarden.jpg[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Resolved

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

Age[edit]

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)[reply]

Certainly we may and probably we should say that (CILIP) --in effect, the British children's librarians?-- assigned it "age range 10+" in 2007. [1] (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)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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