Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet/Archive 1

Redfield paragraph

Here is the paragraph I originally wrote based on the Redfield article on Miss Moppet:

James M. Redfield finds the story follows the tenets of Aristotle's Poetics, with a definite beginning (the unsuccessful attmept to catch the mouse), middle (Miss Moppet pretending to be hurt and catching the mouse), and end (Miss Moppet teasing the mouse and his escape). Redfield notes Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain and creates parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey, by making Miss Moppet "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent". (page 36) Redfield praises Potter's skill as an author; she uses the hole in the duster twice (it allows Miss Moppet to catch the mouse, but then allows him to escape her), and uses phrases particularly suited for a parent to read aloud to a child ("This is the mouse..."). Redfield concludes that while teasing is bad in the story — dangerous for the mouse, and cruel for the cat — Potter herself teases the reader in a good way, in that she "shows us that teasing is a kind of loving when it is a kind of teaching. The poet plays with us, and by taking us through an unreal experience, teaches us what it is to live in the real world." (page 41)

This has been edited here, which I am mostly fine with, but the relationship between the character's parity and the uncertainty in the story's outcome has been changed in a way that I think does not follow Redfield's analysis. The relevant sentences are now:

Redfield notes that in making the story's outcome uncertain Potter created parity between the characters. Although the two are naturally predator and prey, Miss Moppet is "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent".

In his article, Redfield first discusses the prey - predator relation, then how Potter adds these secondary characteristics (young, inexperienced, female, and a pet) which gives the characters this unexpected parity. He finally goes on to say that this parity is what makes the outcome of the story uncertain (i.e. if it were just cat v mouse, we all know how that usually ends). So while I am fine with most of the edits, I am not fine with the change that an uncertain outcome leads to parity as my reading of Redfield is the exact opposite. If others think that I have misread Redfield, please say so. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the edit has subtley altered the meaning of what's being said. There's no implication that the parity was created by making the story's outcome uncertain in the original version, and indeed that hardly seems to make sense anyway. I'd prefer to see something like "Redfield notes that Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain by creating parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey; Miss Moppet is "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent". To me at least that seems to better describe the idea that it's the parity that leads to the uncertainty. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am fine with your suggested version. I have asked Parrot of Doom to weigh in here too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies, feel free to restore the meaning. I've changed it to Malleus's suggestion above. I was just rearranging the words to read with a little more fluidity, without giving them enough regard. Parrot of Doom 09:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No apology needed - thanks for your copyedit and for adding Malleus' sentence, and to Malleus for the sentence, and to Susanne2009NYC for all her hard work on this article. I like collaboration! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to thank your agent, your teachers, your parents, your partner ... ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 13:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I started to, but the orchestra began playing music and a smiling beautiful woman in an evening gown grabbed my arm and gently but firmly pulled me away from the microphone. ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't even noticed this conversation. I re-added Ruhrfisch's original summary; but will re-read the paper. The first summary, posted at FAC, was quite good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources checked

Hi Susanne - I've checked Kutzer, Lear, Linder, and MacDonald and made some changes. Generally, when only a sentence, I tend to use the full quotation and find that if I come back to the text after some time has passed it's easier to reword. At any rate, not being familiar with the material, I've simply added quotation marks as needed and will let you decide whether to leave as is, or to reword. The two Taylor books are not available on-line, so haven't had the opportunity to check those. Will do another pass to clean up any mess I've made. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Done now. If anyone else wants to pass through to clean my prose or check for bad-eye mistakes, that would be nice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the other the Taylor books have not been checked:

• Taylor, Judy (1996) [1986]. Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-4175-9.
• Taylor, Judy; Whalley, Joyce Irene; Hobbs, Anne Stevenson; Battrick, Elizabeth M. (1987). Beatrix Potter 1866–1943: The Artist and Her World. F. Warne & Co. and The National Trust. ISBN 0-7232-3561-9.

I won't have much time until the weekend, unfortunately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to a local library and got a copy of the 1996 Taylor book Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman. I should be able to check it tonight, but do not have access to the other book. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like my library has the other Taylor. I can pick it up tomorrow - but have to work during the day, so won't be able to make fixes until late in the day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have the 1986 Taylor, not the 1996 version. There are five refs to the 1996 version. I have checked all of them, and of the first four, three were fine and one had just minor problems (it listed only the second page of an extended quotation, and the quote did not have Kitten capitalized and was missing "I"). The fifth is a problem though, and makes me wonder if the 1996 version is slightly different from the 1986 edition. The fifth cite (Taylor 1996, p. 216) is three sentences about Warne being sold to Penguin, the 1985 new plates in The Original and Authorized Edition, and the translations. The problem is that the 1986 edition only has the sale to Penguin, and that is on page 214 (not p. 216). The same page has a sentence on translations into Japanese and Icelandic, but no overall number of translated languages and nothing that matches the sentence here (Potter's books have been translated into almost 30 languages, including Greek and Russian.) The 1986 book has nothing on The Original and Authorized Edition. The material is on what happened to Potter and her works after her death, so I can see it changing most in 10 years (1986 ed. vs 1996) Can someone who has access to the 1996 edition please double check it for this material? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to order through ILL. Looks as though the same sources were used on most of these articles and all the articles will need cleaning. I need to stop, but will document tomorrow what I found & how I fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thansk, I tweaked the one sentence that was close to the source just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My library has Lear as well, so I'll have that by the end of the day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources to check

• Dubay, Debby; Sewall, Kara (2006). Beatrix Potter Collectibles: The Peter Rabbit Story Characters. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-7643-2358-X.
  • Not done because it's not available on gbooks.
• Hobbs, Anne Stevenson (1989). Beatrix Potter's Art. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-3598-8. Not done because not available on gbooks or library
  • This is used for only one partial sentence: Potter agreed to colour her pen and ink illustrations, chose the then-new Hentschel three-colour process for reproducing her watercolours,... I think we can just source it elsewhere: Historical survey of children's literature in the British Library says the same thing and would be a RS. Looking on Amazon, it seems like Beatrix Potter 1866–1943: The Artist and Her World has the same material on page 101 (can't preview it, only see it in the search inside function). I say remove that ref and add another we are sure of, with a rewrite. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I have that book - will check it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not in the book as written in the article, but replaced with source from British Library
• Kutzer, M. Daphne (2003). Beatrix Potter: Writing in Code. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94352-3.
  • Done
• Lane, Margaret (1978). The Magic Years of Beatrix Potter. Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd. ISBN 0-7232-2108-1.
  • Not done because the ISBN is incorrect. Am trying to replace w/ another biography. Replace with a different biography by the same author; reworded accordingly
• Lear, Linda (2008) [2007]. Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-37796-7.
  • Done
• Linder, Leslie (1971). A History of the Writings of Beatrix Potter. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-1334-8.
  • Partially done because only snippet view is available on gbooks.
• MacDonald, Ruth K. (1986). Beatrix Potter. Twayne Publishers. ISBN 0-8057-6917-X.
  • Done
• Redfield, James M. (1985). "An Aristotelian Analysis of Miss Moppet". Chicago Review. 34 (4): 32–41.
  • Done
• Taylor, Judy (1996) [1986]. Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-4175-9.
  • Done (1986 ed.)
• Taylor, Judy; Whalley, Joyce Irene; Hobbs, Anne Stevenson; Battrick, Elizabeth M. (1987). Beatrix Potter 1866–1943: The Artist and Her World. F. Warne & Co. and The National Trust. ISBN 0-7232-3561-9. Done

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Will add to this throughout the day as I have time:

• Replaced a paraphrase with a direct quote here.
• Trimmed words used in the source & in the paraphrase here.
• Reworded a close paraphrase here.
• Converted a close paraphrase to a direct quote with attribution here.
• Converted close paraphrase to direct quote with attribution here.
• Converted close paraphrase to direct quotation here
• Converted close paraphrase to direct quote with attribution here
• Reworded unsourced in lead here here
• Reworded close paraphrase here
• Convert close paraphrase to direct quote with attribution here
• Removed text not in source here
• Replaced a source and rewrote accordingly here

More later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded a close paraphrase here (already noted above, added here for completeness) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources

From the library I've checked out the following books:

• Lane, Margaret (1978). The Magic Years of Beatrix Potter. Frederick Warne & Co. Ltd. ISBN 0-7232-2108-1.
• Lear, Linda (2008) [2007]. Beatrix Potter: A Life in Nature. St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-37796-7.
• Taylor, Judy (1986) [1986]. Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-4175-9.
• Taylor, Judy; Whalley, Joyce Irene; Hobbs, Anne Stevenson; Battrick, Elizabeth M. (1987). Beatrix Potter 1866–1943: The Artist and Her World. F. Warne & Co. and The National Trust. ISBN 0-7232-3561-9.

These are probably enough sources to fix this article and the others as well in Potter series. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Merchandise and reprint section questions

I can't verify the following sections in sources & have some questions:

After Potter's death in December 1943, Frederick Warne & Co granted licences to various firms for the production of merchandise based on her characters. Beswick Pottery of Longton, Staffordshire released a porcelain figurine of Miss Moppet in 1954,[35] and, in the 1980s, Schmid & Co of Toronto and Randolph, Massachusetts tapped Miss Moppet's image for a Christmas ornament and a music box figurine.[36] Stuffed toy manufacturers had sought licencing rights as early as 1906, but it was not until the 1970s that an English firm was granted worldwide rights. Their labour intensive products were unprofitable however, and in 1972, The Eden Toy Company of New York became the exclusive manufacturer of Potter characters. A plush Miss Moppet was released in 1973.[37]

• can't verify this entire paragraph, but might be able to pull some information from databases with a little time. Keep or delete?
  • There is relatively little in this section that is specifcally on Miss Moppet, so I think it would be good to keep as much of this as possible. I have seen images of the Beswick Pottery figurine, so it exists. Do you want me to see if I can get the Beatrix Potter Collectibles: The Peter Rabbit Story Characters book via ILL? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think we need the Collectibles book. I'll check the catalog to see if it's at my library (had a surprisingly good selection about Potter) and if yes will post, otherwise, I'll let you ILL it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not in my library, but found this online written by the same author which appears to be RS. It duplicates much of the Dubay info, so I think I'll use it for now, until you have the Collectibles book, if that's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I have requested the Collectibels book via ILL, will let you know when I get it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The first edition panorama format and early editions in hardcover format are occasionally offered by antiquarian booksellers.[41][42]

• cited to private booksellers - I'm inclined to delete and search for a secondary source which might take time.
  • To me it is fairly obvious that first and older editions of Potter's books are sometimes sold by antiquarian booksleelers. I guess the question is does it merit inclusion, and if so does it need a cite? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • *I think it's obvious and doesn't need inclusion. I haven't seen articles about Hemingway books linking to booksellers - but that's just my opinion. I do have a book about book collecting and will check to see if Potter is mentioned - I think that would be a better source than linking to a bookseller's site. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • • I am OK with leaving it out unless there is a secondary source. I do think in this case that even a general statement on Potter's books being collectible sourced to a better RS would be OK to include. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
        • My book about book collecting is a 1995 edition (before all the booksellers went on-line) but Potter has an entry - I'll add. Miss Moppet is not mentioned, but other titles are - very expensive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Under licence to Fukuinkan-Shoten of Tokyo, in the 1970s The Tale of Miss Moppet and 11 other stories were released in Japanese.[45] Miss Moppet was translated into French by Patrice Charvet, and published in 1976 by Frederick Warne, as L'Histoire de Mademoiselle Moppette.[46]

• do we need the information about the Japanese licensing?
  • I think it is interesting because not all of her books were translated into Japanese (only about half were) and yet Miss Moppet was translated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Might be able to find this in a press release in Google news archives, or leave cited as is; but without being able to check for paraphrasing, should be rewritten, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • • Can't find this anywhere - so will wait until you get the Dubay book. Looked on their website - Peter Rabbit is mentioned with translation date, but not Miss Moppet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
          • The Japanese translation on WorldCat lists this publisher and the French translation there lists the same translator. If worse comes to worse, there could just be the blanket statement that Potter's works have been translated into over 30 languages, and then a list of the languages for Miss Moppet with cites to those we were able to find (primary sourcers). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• the information about the French translation is cited to Abebooks and seems redundant as the article states the book has been translated into many languages. Keep or delete?
  • Could this be cited to the French edition (the book itself)?
    • Yes, needs a link to Amazon France, or something like that, maybe? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think this is all resolved except for tweaking the lead. I like having more on things there a secondary sources for (Japanese and French), then have just the mention of the languages for the other translations. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks so much again for all of your work on this, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a problem - saving articles is always worthwhile, and pulling out the bad stuff is also worthwhile. Grace Sherwood got a full rewrite - that doesn't seem necessary here. Helpful that it's a subject area I've worked with. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked on WorldCat and found the following eight translations of Miss Moppet listed:

• Potter, Beatrix (2007). Chuyện về cô mèo Moppet (in Vietnamese). Hanoi: Kim Đồng. OCLC 278282530.
• Potter, Beatrix (1990). La storia della micina Moppet (in Italian). Milan: Sperling & Kupfer. ISBN 8820010798. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Potter, Beatrix (1988). モペットちゃんのおはなし / Mopetto-chan no ohanashi (in Japanese). Tokyo: Fukuinkan Shoten. ISBN 4834003051. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Potter, Beatrix (1987). La historia de la señorita Minina (in Spanish). madrid: Debate. ISBN 847444554X.
• Potter, Beatrix (1976). L'Histoire de Mademoiselle Moppette. London: F. Warne & Co. ISBN 0723218641. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Potter, Beatrix (1978). 小猫莫蓓小姐的故事 / Xiao mao mo bei xiao jie de gu shi (in Chinese). Tai bei: 纯文学出版社, Chun wen xue chu ban she. OCLC 426004930. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Potter, Beatrix (19--). The story of Miss Moppet (in Braille). Vancouver: Canadian National Institute for the Blind. OCLC 317481033. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
• Potter, Beatrix (2002). Die Geschichte von Mieze Mozzi. Sauerländer location = Aarau. ISBN 379414967X. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to think about how to integrate, but very helpful - thanks. Forgot about Worldcat. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My thought was to have a general statement about Potter's works having been translated into more than 30 languages (with a ref), and then give a list of specific languages for Miss Moppet (perhaps with one combined ref listing the verious translations). I just added the German translation, which I found on Amazon.de, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to create a combined ref - why don't you go ahead and add these. My recent edit with the Canadian and Japanese ones was an experiment anyway - I was thinking we should have the entire list. I think I'm about done here - I'm trying to find a Publishers Weekly article to cite the omnibus edition, but am having no luck, so will leave as is. At this point, except for copyediting and possibly tweaking the merchandise section, don't you think we've done what needs to be done? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I reread it and like it very much and have made some copyedits - hopefully I have not messed anything up. I also added the multiple tranlations ref and tweaked the refs for the 23 volume set and omnibus editions. I have a few questions / comments:

• This was unclear to me Although she had not planned the tale with Warne, she had discussed [publishing?] it with him, and he had given it his approval before his death. I think adding "publishing" as indicated would be clearer, but was not 100% sure that was the intent.
  • I've reworded this slightly - they seemed to plan the stories together (also found another piece euphemistically called close paraphrasing in that section and now removed). I can revisit this after reading the Jeremy sections in the sources.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think the lead could mention multiple translations - I can try this if you want
• I like the Potter did not depict death in her stories sentence where it is.
  • Yes, agree. Removed the inline. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Do you want me to try the most of the original art for Potter's books is now the property of the National Trust and political cartoon sentences?
• Would the original price be clearer as "1 shilling" and not the somewhat cryptic "1/-"? I am an Anglophile, but I had to check the shilling and pence article to be sure what that meant.

Calling it a night. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Pictures, refs, and possible additions

I have uploaded all of the images that were deleted except for the 1918 book cover. I got Potter's illustrations from the Project Gutenberg website (HTML version). The ones that were deleted were the same images, but in a larger format. I did not open the EPUB version, perhaps the larger format images are in that?

I also wondered if some of the current refs to Amazon.com could be cited to the books themselves instead (suggested this above for the French version of Miss Moppet).

Having read some of Taylor's Beatrix Potter: Artist, Storyteller and Countrywoman, I wondered if it would be worth adding two more items (from the 1986 edition). One is that the originals of the Miss Moppet book are owned by the National Trust (p. 211). The other is the parody political cartoon (on p. 215) from the June 11, 1976 issue of the New Statesman by Nicholas Garland showing the cat with the face of Margaret Thatcher and the mouse with the face of James Callaghan, after Thatcher lost a motion of no confidence in the Callaghan government. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I opened the EPUB version and the images are the same size as the HTML version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the new additions are a good idea - I was looking at the same sections, and found it interesting. Eventually, after I've had a chance to get through the books, I think the article needs a little more information Potter's art and the illustrations; but maybe that information will end up in the Potter bio. This article has a lot of detail about the size of the book, the panoramas and so on (as though written by a bookseller) but is a bit short on analysis of the art and the writing. That's for the long term though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. WHen I found that Miss Moppet had been "translated" (not sure if that is the right word) into Braille, I thought much of the charm is the illustrations, and the story by itself is OK, but I wondered how it would be without the pictures.

Draft additions

Here are my drafts of the two additions I suggested above.

1) Fate of original illustrations for the book after Potter's death - the only place the article talks about her death is in the Merchandise section, so I thought to add it there, at the start of the second paragraph.

Current sentence: After Potter's death in December 1943, Frederick Warne & Co granted licences to various firms for the production of merchandise based on her characters.

Suggested addition: Potter died in December 1943, and left her home and the original illustrations for almost all of her books, including Miss Moppet, to the National Trust. The National Trust opened Hilltop to visitors in 1947, and displayed her original artwork there until the 1980s.[ref] After Potter's death, Frederick Warne & Co granted licences to various firms for the production of merchandise based on her characters.

[ref for addition is Taylor, 1986, p. 211 for most of this, need to check on the year Hilltop opened, when they pulled the originals from public display, and the exact page numbers, as right now I am in one place, and the book another]

I'm fairly certain the other Taylor book has a good section about this - can't get to it for a few hours though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we've added this yet, correct? The originals were pulled in 1985 and were displayed until then as stipulated by her will. Will add, but where? I found it; nevermind - struck the comment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

2) Political cartoon based on Miss Moppet

I would insert this after the translations and before the very last sentence of the article. Not sure where else to put it, but am open to suggestion

Suggested addition: Miss Moppet was parodied by Nicholas Garland in a policial cartoon in the 11 June, 1976 issue of the New Statesman. Margaret Thatcher had lost a motion of no confidence in the government of Prime Minister James Callaghan, and Garland's cartoon copied the text and parodied four panels of the story, with Callaghan as the mouse who escapes Thatcher the kitten." [ref is Taylor, 1986, p. 215]

How do these seem? Feel free to tweak or ignore, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These additions are fine. I'm just popping in, taking a quick break from real work, and haven't had time, so am happy to see you've gone ahead with this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was able to double check the book a few minutes ago and added the additions to the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Last idea

Looking at the 23 volume set, I noticed something that might be added, but might just be original research: only two of the 23 little books to use "The Story of..." (this and Fierce Bad Rabbit), most are "The Tale of..." though there are other exceptions (it is just The Tailor of Gloucester and there are the two Nursery Rhymes books). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that because on searches I keep using "The Tale of Miss Moppet" instead of "The Story of Miss Moppet". Interesting. I've barely cracked the four books I have, only enough to check the material here, but might come across something as I read through them. Also, I have limited database access, and performed a quick search last night - there's quite a bit of information, but don't know if this particular question can be answered. I think I'll scrub Jeremy Fisher when we're done here, and then start on the filling the biography with information about writing style and her illustrations - that's when I might come across the answer to this. In my view the best way to deal with the many GAs is to write the biography and then I think the repetitive stuff can be deleted from the GAs. They may have to go to GAR, but that's fine - for some reason I seem to be invested in cleaning out the close paraphrasing because so many articles in a single subject area are affected. Oh, one more thing: do you know how to update the CCI? I think it's linked on User:Moonriddengirl's page. I think all the close paraphrasing/copyvio is gone from this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I made The Tale of Miss Moppet a redirect. Had already made Miss Moppet a redirect during the FAC. I will look at the CCI next, am not sure how to update it, but may be able to figure it out. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizations

Professor is only capped at the beginning of the sentence or in conjunction with a specific class & section, or when preceding the name. Classics is only capped at the beginning of the sentence or in conjunction with a specific class and section (ie. Classics 101). I've invested more time than I have on this article - don't want to start edit warring over this. Capitalization rules here. If written as Professor Redfield, then capitalized, but written as "a professor of .... " not because there are (presumably) more than one professor of classics (in other words he is not the only professor of classics). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-FAC cleanup review comments

After this article was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since checked all of the sources used (except one) to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources, and that the language used does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources. One book has not yet been checked (as it is still on order via inter-library loan), but the language in the partial paragraph using that source has been changed, and the facts checked independently as far as possible. The partial paragraph in question is: After Potter's death, Frederick Warne & Co granted licences to various firms for the production of merchandise based on her characters. Beswick Pottery of Longton, Staffordshire released a porcelain figurine of Miss Moppet in 1954,[38] and, in the 1980s, Schmid & Co of Toronto and Randolph, Massachusetts used Miss Moppet's image for a Christmas ornament and a music box figurine.[39] Stuffed toy manufacturers requested licensing for Potter's figures early in the 20th century; however she refused to grant permission, having been disappointed with the quality of the proposed stuffed toys. Frederick Warne & Co. retained rights to all Potter merchandise, and in 1973 granted a license to a toy company in the US to manufacture stuffed animals based Potter's characters, including a plush Miss Moppet.[40][41]

We have asked all editors who contributed to the FAC to review the article and comment here on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Shouldn't commentary on what the plot is, be elsewhere? Such as in the Scholarly commentary section? By commentary I mean the "Moppet is a predator and prey story..." paragraph. Parrot of Doom 23:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks as though Susanne added that para to the plot section here with a citation here. I agree - it should be moved to the critical commentary, but I'm also thinking it's redundant in the section as it currently reads. Will re-read the Redfield article to see if the critical commentary synopsis (as written by Ruhrfish) is a better paraphrase than the para in plot section. In other words, will work on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This sentence from the Scholarly commentary:

Redfield notes that Potter makes the outcome of the plot uncertain and creates parity between the characters, which are naturally predator and prey; Potter makes Miss Moppet "young, inexperienced, female, and a pet", while the mouse is "mature, courageous, male, and independent".[2]

does a better job of summarizing/ paraphrasing the same section of the Redfield piece as the first paragraph in the plot section. I've removed the first paragraph from the plot. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. Agree with removing the paragraph (and thanks for that too). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A past reviewer

Hello everyone. I'm sorry to hear about this big mess. I unfortunately don't have access to many of the sources used, so all I could really help with are things such as prose, grammar, and structure....which are things anyone with hands and eyes can do. If there are specific concerns (barring the references) I would be more than glad to help out. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much - Truthkeeper88 (with a little help from me) has checked all the sources but one, and that source is coming via interlibrary loan, and cleaned up the language. I think basically we wanted to make sure everyone who commented at FAC had the chance to look the article over now that is cleaned up, and comment on any issues remaining. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds great. Within the next day or two I can definitely give the article a once over. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that any changes made, or copyediting, should be done very carefully so as not to inadvertently re-introduce language or structure from the sources. If you find any issues, probably best to bring to the talkpage first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% - please discuss issues here first. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar and other concerns

Lead

• "Booksellers disliked the format, and the story was reprinted after 1913 in small book format."--Repetition of format.
  • Now reads In 1906, she experimented with an atypical format designing Miss Moppet in a panorama style, which booksellers disliked; the story was reprinted after 1913 in small book format.
    • How about something like In 1906, she experimented with an atypical panorama design for Miss Moppet, which booksellers disliked; the story was reprinted after 1913 in small book format.
      • Yes, better. I've copied it into the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• "and once safely out of reach dances a jig atop the cupboard"--is once safely out of reach an apositive? If so, I think it should be put inside commas.
  • fixed these. Not crazy about the fix the first sentence, but I see your point re: repetition

Plot

• "ties a duster about her head and sits before"--I'm not quite sure what a "duster" is in this context.
  • a cloth used to dust

• Right, but it just seems like an old term [by no means an essential concern...will strike].--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "In the last illustration but one, Miss Moppet is seated upright on her rump and staring at the reader."--is this saying the second to last illustration?
  • presumably - this section wasn't changed as it didn't rely on sources
    • It is the second to last illustration in the book. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Can (should) it be reworded?...as it stands it sounds like its beating around the bush.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• What is the reasoning behind the paragraph breaks in this section? It looks a bit random...for instance, the second one flows right into the third.
  • See above. The section hasn't been changed since the FAC review. If consensus is to fix, then I'll fix.

Scholarly commentaries

• "'teaches us what it is to live in the real world'"--I know this is a quote, but is the word like supposed to be between "is" and "to"?
  • No.

Background

• Is there a reason why this section was moved down in the article?
  • Not changed since the FAC review. Will investigate when this was moved when I'm not up to my ears in preparing Thanksgiving
• "She matured into a spinsterish young woman"--can spinsterish be linked to something (an article or heading of an article [not sure which one though]).
  • I don't understand - at any rate, not changed since FAC review

• Just some may not know exactly what it means [not essential...strike].--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Potter revised a tale that she had written for a child in 1893, and fashioned it into a dummy book"--don't think a comma is needed after "1893".
  • reworked
• "at Near Sawrey in the Lake District in July of that year."--The last five words are placed in an awkward spot, makes for a little confusion (you have to look back at the previous sentence to understand it ).
  • Paraphrase of a direct quote - would prefer not to reword here, unless consensus is that it's awkward

• Just the placement of those few words could be better [can strike if you want...not critical].--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "long time editor and fiancé, Norman Warne, died a few weeks"--don't think "Norman Warne" needs to be inside commas.
  • removed - although the name functions as an appositive

Development and publication

• "and he had given it his approval before his death"--> approved it before his death?
  • Good catch - not on the page number cited. Will go through history to see if a ref has been lost; would prefer not to change for the moment
    • Update: good catch! a ref had been lost, but I cannot verify the information as written in either source so I've removed and rewritten to what can be verified. I have read the information about Norman but will have to find it elsewhere when I return to editing after Thanksgiving
      • Taylor (1986, pp. 98, 104-106) has some on Potter discssuing Jeremy Fisher with Norman before his death, but not that he approved it. I am not sure this article needs all that information on a previous book though - I am OK with the current shortened version. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• "She typically worked on two projects at the same time for variety"--this sentence seems sort of stuck in there...anyway it could be moved/reworked?
  • Removed. I think it's interesting to know how she worked, so wouldn't mind seeing it back, but will wait for consensus

• I would like to see it in the article as well. It was just in a weird spot before.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "'panoramic format in the style of Cruikshank's Comic Alphabet, as explained by Taylor."-Closing quotation mark after "Aphabet" (or wherever the quote ends).
  • can't get the quotations and the italics to format - perhaps someone else is better at formatting than I am? Anyway, removed the italics so the quotations show.
    • I added the italics for the title - is this right? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Would this be better as Taylor expalins that Potter was inspired by George Cruikshank's illustrations, and intended to have the stories published in "panoramic format in the style of Cruikshank's Comic Alphabet".[17]
• "'a long strips of paper'"--again, a direct quote from something else, but the wording just doesn't make sense.
  • don't quite understand
    • I was able to check the original quotation on Google books and fixed it - now reads The panorama format consisted of "long strips of paper, on which the individual pages of pictures and text were arranged in order from left to right."[18] Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I seem to have come to the end of my Google books quota for the month - all I'm seeing are blank pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's just that it says "a long strips"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "free-thinking exuberant people, like her cousin Caroline, or mischievous kittens and small children"--I think the phrase "like her cousin Caroline" could be elipsed out as it does nothing to help the explanation.
  • The quotation refers directly to the cousin so if it's removed it seems to change the meaning of the sentence. Will leave to consensus
• "from a young kitten, and wanting not to show cruelty she wrote"--The comma should go after "and"...right?
  • fixed
• "'The wallet was closed with a flap and "tied with a ribbon.'"--There are a lot of phrases like this that don't appear to have to be quoted...it's also unclear who said it.
  • converted entire sentence to a direct quotation
• I'm not sure the fifth paragraph is even necessary at all.
  • hasn't been changed since FAC review

Merchandise

• "retained rights to all Potter merchandise, and in 1973 granted a license to a toy company"--unnecessary comma.
  • removed

Reprints and translations

• "In 1986 MacDonald observed that Potter's books"--comma after "1986"?
  
  • technically not required after two word prepositional phrase but changed to be consistent throughout

Hope these help the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Beyond my (fairly inconsequential) grammatical concerns, I see this as a great article (once the reference issues have been fixed).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• My sincere thanks too, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. As far as I'm concerned, all the hard work is done. Great work fixing up this mess.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments from FAC reviewer

• Scholarly commentaries: Typo in here: "the unsuccessful attmept to catch the mouse".
• Background: "Potter agreed to colour her pen and ink illustrations according to Warne's requirements; and she suggested...". Picky, but the semi-colon should probably just be a regular comma.
• Merchandise: Remove comma from 22 December, 1943" as one usually isn't included when dates are formatted in this style. There's another date like this late in the article.
• Repetition here: "to the National Trust. The National Trust...".
• "to manufacture stuffed animals based Potter's characters". Missing "on", I believe.
• Reprints and translations: "reported that Potter was considered one of the top most popular classic writers". One word too many. Removing "top" would solve the problem.
• Reference 9 needs an en dash for the page range. Also, it is not formatted quite the same as several other references; it is formatted in XX-XX style, while others don't include the first number of the second page if it is identical to the first number of the first page. Reference 8 is a perfect example: the page range is given as 51–2. For consistency, the page range here should probably be 66–7. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • These have all been fixed. Thanks for finding them and for taking the time to look this over. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A few comments

The article is well written and though I didn't participate in the FAC, I'd like to offer some comments:

The story may not necessarily be a morale tale, Carpeneter states:

even more strongly about Potter’s fiction that there is nothing in her work that resembles the moral tale. In fact it might be argued that she is writing something pretty close to a series of immoral tales; that the voice is . . . a rebel, albeit a covert one, demonstrating the rewards of nonconformity, and exhorting her young readers to question the social system into which they found themselves born.

Sources/References

• doi:10.1353/chq.2007.0052
• Carpenter, Humphrey. “Excessively Impertinent Bunnies: The Subversive Element in Beatrix Potter.” Children and Their Books: A Celebration of the Work of Iona and Peter Opie. Ed. Gillian Avery and Julia Briggs. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989. 271–98.

Perhaps something about this opposing view should be included?

Also, there doesn't seem to be a section for general reception, only scholarly commentary. The The Publishers' circular and booksellers' record wrote:

These new little books from the brush and pen of Miss Potter should prove even more successful than those of 'Peter Rabbit' fame, for a novelty is always welcome, and what child would not like to explore the mysteries of the unfolding flags, and when unfolded either turn the sections over one by one, or open out in full panoramic form to gaze at the adventures of the 'fierce bad rabbit' and how he lost his tail, or the troubles of Miss Moppet and her failure to catch Mr. Mouse. It is needless to add Miss Potter's pictures are as fascinating as ever.

There's also an online version at Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library, and a few images here.Smallman12q (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smallman, and thanks for emailing me the Carpenter piece. I couldn't access it but wanted to read it. Funny that he wrote about both Beatrix Potter and Ezra Pound - there doesn't seem to be much overlap there. I'll have a look and incorporate into the article the information you've provided. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My thanks too - I think that the page from the The Publishers' circular and booksellers' record is a full page advertisement by F. Warne & Co., not an independent review per se. The ad seems to quote a review for Jeremy Fisher, but not for Miss Moppet. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually can't access that link, and haven't downloaded the other. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I can transcribe the rest of the Publisher's circular text here if you need or want it. I also found that Publisher's Weekly mentioned the book in 1907 - see page 202 here. Mostly talks about the panorama format. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, because I'm not sure we should use the bookseller's advertising. The 1907 Publishers Weekly is interesting though. Would you like me to ask Smallman to email you the copy of the Carpenter essay? I have my email disabled at the moment, so can't do it myself ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Both the ad and PW mention this book and Fierce Bad Rabbit as part of a new series of Potter Pocket books, which is interesting. I would be glad to get the email, and mine is enabled (though I do not check it every day - will now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I have to ask Smallman who posted above to mail the Carpenter piece to you because I'm disabled ... will leave him a message. I had noticed in some of the reading that the three books, Moppet, the bad rabbit and the other (sorry my mind is blank right now), were a new series in a new small format which I did think was interesting, but couldn't quite get enough information to clarify what that meant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably easier for me to re-enable my email. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Also in this book in this book that the tale is not a morality tale, based on the same source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Last odds and ends

Page numbers

Just trying to get the last little things that need to be checked listed here, as this talk page is getting pretty long and some things might be missed otherwise. I have struck things that I thought were resolved.

• Are the page numbers for Taylor 1996 all correct now? (I think they are, but the ones I checked were the 1986 edition).
  • Yes, they seem to be right. But, I'll go through checking only for page numbers tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk)
    • • They're okay now - but they needed to be fixed. I had to remove a sentence that was not in either book, and I still need to check a another sentence if the source is available on Google books. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Add here to document: much of what was cited to the 1996 Taylor is in fact from the 1986 Taylor. I've been through the history of all my edits and checked my work. These are now correct. That was confusing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Collectibles

• Still need to check: Dubay, Debby; Sewall, Kara (2006). Beatrix Potter Collectibles: The Peter Rabbit Story Characters. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.. ISBN 0-7643-2358-X. I am waiting for it via ILL. This is the second paragraph of Merchandise, after the first two sentences.
• Do we need to check: Linder, Leslie (1971). A History of the Writings of Beatrix Potter. Frederick Warne. ISBN 0-7232-1334-8. any more? This is mostly dimensions of the various editions, but also has the Japanese edition and the quote. The quote is partially on p. 132 of the omnibus edition (intro to Fierce Bad Rabbit) - I can see it on Amazon's look inside feature.
  • I was able to check some of that on Google books, but not all. It varies from day to day, so can look again tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I looked at Linder's book on Google Books and could see almost all of the quote (it was correct in this article, though the Amazon version has one word different). I found this by searching on phrases in the quote, but could not find any mention in Linder of the Japanese publisher's name or of Tokyo or of the French translator's name. I did find two things with Japanese, but neither were what is here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • This is a problem - tonight I cleaned up Peter Rabbit and there were a few incidences where the information in the text simply did not exist in the source. I've decided to delete if it can't be verified. I've looked for press releases, checked Google news, gone to the Japanese publisher's website, checked trade magazines - I cannot verify the information about the Japanese company. They do have Peter Rabbit on their website, but not Miss Moppet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. I just removed the separate discussion of the Japanese and French translations, and just folded them into the general sentence on Miss Moppet translations. I think the fact that a book has been translated into a specific language can be cited to the translated version itself. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

After Potter's death, Frederick Warne & Co granted licences to various firms for the production of merchandise based on her characters. Beswick Pottery of Longton, Staffordshire released a porcelain figurine of Miss Moppet in 1954,[38] and, in the 1980s, Schmid & Co of Toronto and Randolph, Massachusetts tapped Miss Moppet's image for a Christmas ornament and a music box figurine.[39] Stuffed toy manufacturers requested licensing for Potter's figures early in the 20th century; however she refused to grant permission, having been disappointed with the quality of the proposed stuffed toys. Frederick Warne & Co. retained rights to all Potter merchandise, and in 1973 granted a license to a toy company in the US to manufacture stuffed animals based Potter's characters, including a plush Miss Moppet.[40][41]

I looked online and verified that each of the items mentioned exists (figurine, ornament, music box, and plush toy):

• Here is web page with photos of the figurine. The bottom has the firm and 1954 date and matches the article.
• Here is a page with Beatrix Potter ornaments - it has two Mioss Moppet ornaments by Schmid and if you click on them you can see a picture (it's an ugly ornament, IMHO)
• Here is an eBay page with pictures of the Miss Moppet music box by Schmid.
• I found mention of Miss Moppet plush toy on Squidoo dot com, but it is a blacklisted website and cannot be linked from Wikipedia.

So each item seems to exist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Searching "Miss Moppet" on eBay I also found a Royal Albert porcelain figurine (Royal Doulton bought Beswick and produced their figurines under this name), a puzzle, and a counted cross stitch (set of patterns). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The text of the section has been rewritten, I think (will plow through the history again to confirm), so I think this issue has been checked as well as it can be, don't you? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I now have the Dubay book. Don't have time to check it right now, but should get to it tonight or perhaps tomorrow. I did look at the first ref and it is correct, though the book also fgives the date the figurine was discontinued and a bit of history of Beswick being bought by Royal Doulton and its products then being produced under the Royal Albert name. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be good to verify all of that information. Would you mind taking a look at Peter Rabbit as well - I think Dubay is referenced in that article. I'm taking a bit of a Potter break but will get back to these fairly soon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(out) I checked the book and made a few changes. The Christmas ornament was not in the pages cited, but it is in the book (which has no index, grr). It says Peter Rabbit has been translated into over 35 languages (p. 19), and shows the Polish, Latin, French, Japanese, Portugese, Italian, Spanish, Scottish, Chinese, Welsh, and German (pp. 16-18). Mentions Braille too (p. 19). Dubay also says Miss Moppet is Tom Kitten's sister and says the book format reprint was in 1916 (p. 22). There is a ton of Peter Rabbit stuff in the book, which I have for two weeks. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Image upload

• Should I upload the cover of the 1918 small format edition (only picture that was deleted that I did not re-upload)?
  • I wouldn't bother, unless you want to. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, but the caption might need a ref (and it is to a bookseller). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I added the ref for the caption. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Is the one of only two "Story of ..." litle book titles worth including?
  • I think we can add later. I'm finding more sources, and realize, unfortunately, I'll be living in the world of Beatrix Potter for a little while. If I come across it in a source, will add. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyedits

• Do you think we need to comb through and fix the punctuation per WP:LQ? I think we should - it's a bad habit of mine to place the punctuation inside the quotation marks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes. Do you want me to? I also copyedited the sentence on charity Christmas cards just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I just did a light copyedit, looking for LQ issues, but also doing some other tweaks (tighten one or two places, add a word if one seemed to be missing, or removing one if it seemed out of place. Please check my work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Review again

• I wondered about asking the people who commented at FAC to take a second look at the article once we are all done.
  • Yes, I think this needs another set of eyes. Don't know if a full FAR is necessary, but someone should have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • When we think it is all done (every single issue has been addressed) then I say leave a short message on the talk page of each person who reviewed it at FAC explaining the situation and what we have done and asking them to reread the article and commetn here (the article talk page). I would only take this to FAR if they say to. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • • I think that's a good plan - we still need the Dubay book, and I want to comb through myself one more time. I'm not crazy about the overuse of quotes (have had comments about that in my work) but really think quotes and attribution is the best thing to do here. Sometimes if I let an article sit and don't look at the sources, it's easier to reword after a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I also think this should be done sooner rather than later, with the caveat that the merchandise information hasn't been verified. Perhaps, the best thing to do would be to comment out that bit until it can be verified. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I think the paragraph can be left in, with a caveat that it has not been checked. Since the items mentioned all seem to exist, I am less worried about this. When you do want to ask them - I can ask if you want. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I really wasn't involved with the article, (except for a few comments), so I'll leave it you to decide. If you want me to make notifications, I can, although not until after work tomorrow. Also, I'll be available to make changes, although on Thursday I won't be at the computer during the day. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I peer reviewed it and supported at FAC, and made a fair number of comments there too. After the FAC was closed, Susanne added me as a co-nom to the FA. So I owuld be glad to ask everyone who commented on the FAC tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                • Sounds good. I've just looked at the section again, and I remember rewording most of it. I've made a slight tweak; it looks fine to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The kitten

• The Omnibus Beatrix Potter on Amazon has a look inside feature. It says that Potter used the same kitten as a model for The Tale of Tom Kitten (p. 147) and that Tom and Moppet are brother and sister (p. 140, the story lists Tom's sisters as Mittens and Moppet). Tom Kitten was her next book. Worth mentioning? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably worth mentioning - I think I read that in the Lear biography - but will take a little while to find again. Am working slowly today & need to clear leaves outside. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Taylor 1986 has the fact that the same kitten was the model for both Miss Moppet and Tom Kitten, and the fact that Potter borrowed the kitten from a Windermere (sp?) mason. Can probably add this or add this back tomorrow. Do you want me to write a draft here first? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • That was a stupid mistake - I was blurry eyed and mixed up the small writing (1996 & 1986) on the book's copyright page. I can check it later if you don't get to it. I don't think it's necessary to write a draft. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks. I have now added it to the article (added back the mason and added the connections to Tom Kitten). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-Victorian Potter

Here's a draft of the section summarizing Chandler's essay. This is short, but I think maybe all that's necessary.

In her essay "Thoroughly Post-Victorian, Pre-Modern Beatrix" Katherine Chandler points out that Potter, unlike most Victorian writers of children's books, wrote original stories based on the realism of animal behaviour. In her tales, Chandler notes, Potter avoids moralizing, making Miss Moppet nothing more than a tale describing the natural behaviour of kittens. Potter's anthropormorphized animals are in fact slightly naughty, yet in their naughtiness the punishment is never the moral of the tale. At the end of Miss Moppet, the kitten is not punished and the mouses dances on the cupboard, about which Chandler quotes literary scholar of modernism Humphrey Carpenter, "there is nothing in [Potter's] work that resembles the moral tale. In fact if might be argued that she is writing something pretty close to a series of immoral tales". In addition Chandler notes that Potter's economic use of prose presages modernism, comparing her writing to that of Ernest Hemingway.

• Chandler, Katherine (2007). "Thoroughly Post-Victorian, Pre-Modern Beatrix". Children's Literature Quarterly. 32 (4). The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've read the paper and like your draft. I have a few suggested tweaks. All the other authorities are briefly identified, so Chandler should be too. I also tried to tweak things a bit:

In her essay "Thoroughly Post-Victorian, Pre-Modern Beatrix" professor of English Katherine Chandler points out that Potter, unlike most Victorian writers of children's books, wrote original stories based on the realism of animal behaviour. Chandler notes that Potter avoids moralizing in her tales, making Miss Moppet nothing more than a story describing the natural behaviour of kittens. Potter's anthropormorphized animals are in fact slightly naughty, yet in their naughtiness the punishment is never the moral of the tale. At the end of Miss Moppet, the kitten is not punished and the mouses dances on the cupboard. This leads Chandler to quote literary scholar of modernism Humphrey Carpenter, "there is nothing in [Potter's] work that resembles the moral tale. In fact if might be argued that she is writing something pretty close to a series of immoral tales". In addition Chandler notes that Potter's economic use of prose presages modernism, comparing her writing to that of Ernest Hemingway.

• Chandler, Katherine (2007). "Thoroughly Post-Victorian, Pre-Modern Beatrix". Children's Literature Quarterly. 32 (4). The Johns Hopkins University Press: 287–307.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

PS I also noted that Chandler discusses how Potter's art uses white space and is relatively simple and focused on the subject compared to most art in Victorian children's books. She also notes how Potter's perspective is usually at the height of a toddler (or even closer to the ground). Might be worth including, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks. I'll copy it into the article. I was interested in Chandler's description of the art and have read something similar in the other books. I don't quite know what to do about that - write a general section to add to the Beatrix Potter biography and then summarize briefly in each article is the direction I've been heading. It needs some more research though, so I thought it would be okay to add in here later. What do you think? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think more detail in the BP article and a brief summary here would be fine. If there are specifics about the art in a particular book, obviously the book's article is the place to put it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Silent admirer

I have this page on my watchlist so I've noticed the tireless work put in by User:Truthkeeper88 and User:Ruhrfisch. I just wanted to say, fantastic work...the article's awesome.  :) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing - I think Truthkeeper88 has done the lion's share of the work. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Order and first sentence

I looked back and the article order when it passed FAC was fairly different compared to the current order - see diff of promotion to FA by Gimmebot. The order that passed FAC was Lead, Background, Development and publication, Plot, Scholarly commentaries, Merchandise, Reprints and translations, References, and External links. Susanne changed the order after it made FA. I assume it would be OK to change the order back to that approved in FAC? I would be glad to make the moves and also check that links were on first mention.

I also wonder given the recent addition that this is not a morality tale if the lead sentence should still be "The Story of Miss Moppet is a moral tale about teasing, written and illustrated by Beatrix Potter." Perhaps just get rid of "moral": "The Story of Miss Moppet is a tale about teasing, written and illustrated by Beatrix Potter." or something like "The Story of Miss Moppet is a tale about teasing featuring a kitten and a mouse, written and illustrated by Beatrix Potter." Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

That explains one of the comments earlier and I should have checked the history but didn't expect the article would have been re-organized after FAC. Yes, I'll let you do the re-org: that's the kind of work that I invariably mess up. Went to library today for something entirely different and on the same shelf found the Carpenter book - so I'll read and then I think separate his quotes from Chandler's. Won't get to it immediately though, but fairly soon. Oh, and yes, the lead should be rewritten per what you have above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made the changes. Towards the end of the FAC I was not paying super close attention - my recollection was that the rearrangment was actually done in the last few days of the FAC, but on checking I found that it was done afterwards. I was a bit concerned about the images after I rearranged the sections, but they were all in the sections where they are now when it passed FAC (though some were not left or right aligned as now). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Three last bits

There are three very minor things in Dubay that might be added here.

1. Moppet is Tom Kitten's sister (this is also in the Omnibus edition, so we have two reliable sources for it). Article already states that Tom Kitten is the next book and that he has a sister named Moppet, so not sure if this needs to be added.
2. In Merchandise, the Schmid company went bankrupt and closed its doors very unexpectedly in 1995, so there is an end date for the Miss Moppet music box and ornaments it produced or distributed. The problem is that while Dubay's book explicitly gives the beginning and end dates for the Beswick figurine, it does not explicitly say when the Schmid Moppet items were discontinued. It just has the brief history of the company and its closure in 1995. I would probably change the sentence Schmid also distrbuted two Miss Moppet Christmas ornaments (3 and 1.5 inches (76 and 38 mm) tall), made by the Italian firm ANRI.[40] to something like The Italian firm ANRI made two Miss Moppet Christmas ornaments 3 and 1.5 inches (76 and 38 mm) tall, which were also distributed by Schmid before it went out of business in 1995.[40]
3. There is also an end date for all of the Beatrix Potter Eden Toys plush figures, though again the Miss Moppet is not mentioned specifically except for the year of introduction. I would probably just add the following short sentence to the end of Merchandise Eden Toys stopped making Batrix Potter plush figures in 2003. Not sure if this (or any of these) needs to be added or not.

Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do think it's worth mentioning that Moppet is Tom Kitten's sister - having the source available will be handy to add the same information to Tom Kitten. The merchandise question is kind of interesting: if they've all been discontinued, then the article should, I suppose, be consistent and mention so. The problem I keep having, is that I feel as though this has been written for collectors of books and stuff, with less emphasis on Potter's writing and illustrations (which I will get to soon), so I'm a little ambivalent about how to write that section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add the sibling bit - need to double check the page number. Should it be double cited (to both Dubay and the omnibus)? One thing I look for when I read articles is consistency. So since the start and end dates are known for the Beswick / Royal Doulton figurine, it seems to me consistent to add end dates for the Schmid and Eden Toy trinkets. This could be done more succinctly - let me think about how best to say it. Agree we want the focus to be on the book. Also know from Googling that there is more stuff out there with Miss Moppet on it, but I am fine limiting the "sideshows" as Potter called them to what Dubay mentions.

I also noticed that the four scholarly works discussed are inconsistent - Redfield's has the year in the text, the other three do not (since years are in the refs, I am OK with taking it out of the Redfield paragraph). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked it so it says Miss Moppet is Tom Kitten's sister, added a ref, removed the year from Redfield, and removed the hidden comment about the figurine. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll be gone from this article for the next week, but then will have time to go through in detail again. Sometimes it's helpful for me to step back and then return to find any errors. I plan to fix the Humphrey Carpenter information at that point as well. Thanks, though for keeping at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Take your time - a break is usually helpful to give some distance for improvement. I also read more in Dubay and have some suggestions on the merchandise below. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Business closures

I reread Dubay (which desperately needs an index). Eden Toy unexpectedly went bankrupt in March 2001 (p. 105). The ANRI Beatrix Potter collection was first distributed by Schmid in the US in 1983 (p. 128), and was retired in 1991 (p. 131); Schmid went unexpectedly bankrupt in December 1995 (p. 106). Is there a Beatrix Potter merchandise curse? ;-) So here's an attempt to incorporate this inforamtion succinctly into the existing sentences. Additions are underlined and removals use strikethrough.

In 1980, Schmid & Co. of Toronto and Randolph, Massachusetts introduced a Miss Moppet music box figurine. From 1983 to 1991, Schmid also distrbuted two Miss Moppet Christmas ornaments (3 and 1.5 inches (76 and 38 mm) tall), made by the Italian firm ANRI. Schmid went out of business in 1995. Stuffed toy manufacturers requested licensing for Potter's figures early in the 20th century; however she refused to grant permission, having been disappointed with the quality of the proposed stuffed toys. Frederick Warne & Co retained rights to all Potter merchandise and in 1973 granted a license to the Eden Toys company of Jersey City, New Jersey to manufacture stuffed animals based on Potter's characters, including a plush Miss Moppet, beginning in 1975. Eden Toys closed in 2001.

When you get a chance, let me know what you think please. No rush. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

PS I realize firms can go bankrupt and remain in business, but in both these cases, the firms closed their doors and stopped all production. I tweaked the above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the version above is fine, but have tried a slight consolidation below.

From 1980 until 1995 when it went out of business, Schmid & Co. of Toronto and Randolph, Massachusetts introduced a Miss Moppet music box figurine. From 1983 to 1991, Schmid also distrbuted two Miss Moppet Christmas ornaments (3 and 1.5 inches (76 and 38 mm) tall), made by the Italian firm ANRI. Stuffed toy manufacturers requested licensing for Potter's figures early in the 20th century; however she refused to grant permission, having been disappointed with the quality of the proposed stuffed toys. Frederick Warne & Co retained rights to all Potter merchandise and in 1973 granted a license to the Eden Toys company of Jersey City, New Jersey to manufacture stuffed animals based on Potter's characters, including a plush Miss Moppet, beginning in 1975 which was discontinued in 2001 when Eden Toys went out of business.

Honestly, I'm happy with either version. I have a little time tonight, so will try to read the Carpenter as well to see if more additions are required. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Update - although Carpenter has an entire chapter devoted to Potter, nothing specific about Miss Moppet. He does have quite a lot to say about the other stories, but I'll add that information as I get time. I think we've done what needs to be done here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Carpenter. I added a tweaked version of yours - split the last sentence in two (as it was getting pretty long and complex) and changed the verb for the music box (introduced no longer fit a range of years, so changed it ot produced). I found some more on translations in Dubay, but all general (not Miss Moppet specific). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)