Talk:Goldilocks and the Three Bears/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

First off, great work on this article! Short story articles are not easy to work on here (and I know first hand). I have a few comments, if you don't mind:

Lead

I wonder if it's worth adding the more well-known name of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" right in the first line and bolded (I did something similar for "The Masque of the Red Death"). This might necessitate some minor re-writing of the third paragraph in the lead. I also might recommended linking "children's story" to children's literature. The second paragraph is a bit awkward when I read it. Try reading it aloud and see how you feel about it.

Done. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

I see what you're saying in the "rule of three" link here, but I'd like to suggest it's not appropriate here. According to the rule of three wiki page: The rule of three is a principle in English writing that suggests that things that come in threes are inherently funnier, more satisfying, or more effective than other numbers of things. This is not plot summary but interpretation. I would recommend finding a reliable source that makes the connection that this story is funnier, more satisfying, etc., and mentioning it as such under the Interpretation section.

I made a few minor adjustments in this section myself, too.

Done. Will look for further sources. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Southey's tale

I think a quick mention that the story existed before Southey wrote it down is important here. For example, the phrase the reading public assumed it to be original with Southey needs some qualification as for why they shouldn't have (though the story had previously been told for years?). It implies something but doesn't get there quick enough.

Regarding referencing: In 1837, the British poet Robert Southey recorded "The Story of The Three Bears" in narrative form, and inserted it into volume four of his anonymous collection of linked essays, The Doctor does not seem likely to be challenged but has two footnotes. Scholarly opinion holds he was simply retelling a popular tale is much more likely to be challenged but has only one. Any reason why?

Subsequent developments

The naming and renaming of the character seems repetitive. Maybe centralize the discussion of the name more closely or something like that.

Done. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This section has been reworked a bit. The discussion of Goldilocks (names and final fate) has been centralized. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Scrapefoot"

Another footnote in here might help. There's a decent-sized chunk of text that does not have one.

Interpretations

It's best to put a footnote immediately after a quote so it's a bit more reliable. There are a couple instances where you could do this (even if you're doubling up the footnote for the next piece of info immediately after). I'd put one after "promise of future happiness awaiting those who have mastered their Oedipal situation as a child" and "remarkably anal".

Done. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Notes have been inserted where needed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cultural impact

I'd convert this section to prose rather than a bulleted list. Personally, I'd also probably move all the unsourced stuff into a different paragraph. In this section, I'm also left wanting more information about, for example, how prevalent the story is today. Do you have a source that says something even as basic as, "Lots of children are introduced to this story at a young age today"

Interestingly, I haven't yet found a reliable scholarly source that says "The story remains popular" or something similar. Will continue to look. There must be something out there! I'd like to develop this a bit. There was a TV show and a musical. Will add if sources can be found. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not surprised! Sometimes the most basic statements are hardest to verify. It's almost like it's so understood, it doesn't need to be stated! Then again, Wiki-policy leaves a loophole: WP:CITE#CHALLENGED says that footnotes aren't necessary if a line of text isn't likely to be challenged. I wonder if there's a basic line we can add that fits the bill of that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Other notes

It might be worth going in and changing the redirects to this article, i.e. anything that links to "Goldilocks and the Three Bears".

I'm not sure how to do this. Help! ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You drop a few names, like George Nicol and Eleanor Mure - a quick note about who they are would help (i. e. "writer George Nicol", etc). One is only a last name, it seems ("Routledge").

Done. ItsLassieTime (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of these suggestions. I will put the article on hold and await your response! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

The only thing I'm really thinking now is that the Analysis section relies only on two sources, which could meet with future concerns over verifiability. A couple more footnotes thrown in would help, preferably from previously-unused sources. The more, the better (of course). How do you feel about the article right now? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I can add footnotes to the "Analysis" section. I'm satisfied with the article on the whole. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as fixing redirects: It's not necessary for this GA review. However, here's what you can do. If you go to the article and look at the sidebar on the left, you'll see a link called "What links here" in the toolbox. That will show you all the articles, talk pages, etc. that link to the article (like your watchlist or contributions list, you can choose to show only article main space). Here's what I see at the top:

View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    * Three Bears (redirect page) (links)
          o Roller derby (links)
          o User:Bjimba/test looney tunes (links)
          o Treehouse of Horror XI (links)
          o User:Bjimba/test looney table (links)
          o List of characters in Fables (links)
          o List of 2 Stupid Dogs episodes (links)
          o Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 38 (links)

You can clearly see the links to redirects under the specific redirect page it's headed to. And, if you want, you can go in and change them to pipe links that go right to the article, rather than to the redirect. Anyway, it's up to you if you want to do that.

Some final notes:

• The sentence in the lead — The same year, writer George Nicol published a version in rhyme based upon Southey's prose tale, with Southey approving the attempt to bring the story more exposure — is a bit awkward. Consider re-writing.
• In plot summary, the quote "a Little, Small, Wee Bear, a Middle-sized Bear, and a Great, Huge Bear" could use a footnote, just to verify the edition (in case of variations, etc). Same with another quote in that section near the end.
• Under Subsequent developments, who is this Joseph Cundall? Historian? Editor? Trapeze-artist? :)
• A couple paragraphs have only two sentences. Try to expand to three.
• Make sure all your internet sources are footnoted properly; I'm not the best at these things so feel free to ask another for an opinion.

Nevertheless, I'm very happy to pass this article as "Good". That makes only five articles (that I know of) on short stories which have passed the GA process. Well done! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)