Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street/archive1

And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street

And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street/archive1

Nominator(s): Bobnorwal (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Mulberry Street, basically Dr. Seuss's first book. Because it was his first, many writers have focused on it, and as far as I know, this Wiki article cites all of them. I don't really know anything about FACs, but Curly Turkey, who has been working with me on this article and who seems to be a regular here, says this article is just about ready. I'll take his word for it and brace myself for the deluge of constructive criticism. :D Bobnorwal (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:And_to_Think_That_I_Saw_It_on_Mulberry_Street.png: who is the cover artist?
• File:MS_Kungsholm_1928.jpg: can we translate the permission details, and give a more specific source than "internet"?
• File:Beatrix_Potter1.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Done, done, and done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Whooops! I missed the bit about the source for the Kungsholm. I'm not having luck tracking down another copy of the image online, so for now I'll just comment it out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Great topic, really interesting read. I made some small changes. (I love the link between Seuss and Potter, which I'd never heard of before, despite reading them both as a young child.)

• "By 1943, it had printed 31,600 copies, and Geisel's royalties were no more than $3,500" How about "but"? Also, what's that in today's money?

I think "and" works better. I'm not really sure if that was a small, average, or above-average amount of royalties to receive from that amount of sales at that time, so the "but" would be too presumptious at this time. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In 2012, on the occasion of the book's 75th anniversary, Michael Winerip argued that later Dr. Seuss books were more entertaining and inventive than Mulberry Street but that it is nevertheless important as a harbinger of the many books that followed." This is apparently unreferenced- perhaps move the reference to after this statement, or add another reference after it?

Fixed. Curly warned me about the ambiguity of my sourcing method at GAN. I fixed some of the sources but not all. This was one of them. You pointed out another one a few points down. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "other Dr. Seuss books" Why do you use the pen name here? Are you referring only to Geisel's works written under that name?

Fixed. I changed it to "Geisel's other books". Thank. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Deems Taylor adapted Mulberry Street into an orchestral work, Marco Takes a Walk. The work opens with a theme that represents the horse and wagon, which is followed by six variations that represent the various changes in Marco's story. The work's premiere, conducted by Howard Barlow, occurred at Carnegie Hall on November 14, 1942.[36]" I wonder if there's any more information about this?

What more would you like to know? The source that I based this passage on goes on for about three pages about that musical work. I haven't found any other sources about it, although they're probably out there. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd at least note that it may have been a one-off performance: Dr. Seuss and Mr. Geisel: A Biography: "Ted [Geisel] missed the event, and to his knowledge it was never performed again". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• "nother group of children held up a banner that read, "And to think that we saw him on Mulberry Street"." What's the reference for this?

Fixed. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can I suggest that the Fogerty point be moved to the paragraph with the orchestral work, while the homecoming thing is moved to the paragraph talking about the Springfield Cycle?

Really nice read- I'll take a snoop around for other sources soon, as I note that you haven't cited any journals- I imagine that there's going to be a bit of coverage of Seuss out there. J Milburn (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I've jotted some comments on this page's talk page concerning possibly missed sources. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work! As you can see, Curly and I are working to address all your points. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, thanks also for all your hunting down of sources. You're quite right about the lack of scholarly journals. The problem is one of practicality. I just don't have access to Project Muse, or at least I don't think I do. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:RX is thataway. Very useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Great news! I found out I have access to it today. It's the weekend now, though, and I can only access it from my school's campus. I'll sift through the sources within a week. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- After remaining open a month without approaching consensus for promotion, no activity for a couple of weeks, and apparently further research to do, it's time to archive this nomination. Per FAC instructions, pls wait at least two weeks before returning to nominate this or any article; you can take that time (or as long as you need) to improve the article outside the pressure of the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)