Talk:The Cat in the Hat/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Zanimum (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks quite meaty! I'm looking forward to reviewing this. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

This section is rather dependent on reviews reprinted in modern books, namely Nel (2007) and Fensch (2001). As such, it's tough to know whether these reviews were immediately after release, a few months, a few years. The immediacy of praise is at least a minor factor. Does either book cite the actual sources in its footnotes? I'd love to see references to the actual issues of New York Times Book Review and Library Journal, each footnote with a note that the review was reprinted in whichever publication.

As you can imagine, I have no way of getting ahold of the actual reviews, as they were all published in periodicals over half a century ago. According to Nel (2007), they were all published in 1957. Well... one in 1958. Here's how he formatted one of them:

Goodwin, Polly. "Hurray for Dr. Seuss!" Chicago Sunday Tribune, 12 May 1957.

Would you mind showing me how you would like me to cite it? Then I could replicate your style for all the others. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's now #27. Tell me what you think; it's not critical, but I've seen it in other reviewed articles, and in the long run it's valuable for anyone who might want to dig further. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just made the changes. I definitely think you have a point. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

"translated into ... Braille." translation suggests a lanugage, whereas Braille is just a representation of other languages.

What would you suggest as an alternative? Persnoally, I think the word "translate" has a broad enough meaning to work here. See definition 3a here, which reads in part "To change from one form, function, or state to another". What do you think I should do? Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more into Braille, it seems that character-for-character convertion into Braille is called translation, whereas I think human done is variably transcription or translation. Most Braille isn't translated character-by-character. I had thought perhaps "translated into English Braille" would be appropriate, but there's barely any use of that phrase online, so I guess we'll stick as is. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations

Perhaps Wubbulous World is also worth mentioning, as the Cat is the lead character?

I could definitely do that. Truth is, the Cat has had quite a career up and beyond this little book. Where information about that career really belongs is in its own article, probably named The Cat in the Hat (character). I haven't gotten around to creating it yet (I might never) but at the same time I don't want to clog this article up with that stuff too much.Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the Lead, "Background". I find it amazing that Geisel's personal papers aren't in an archives anywhere, so people would actually be able to count the word list themselves, and sort out which of his stories was correct. Or even that Houghton Mifflin doesn't maintain the list in their corporate archives.

Plot

Gosh, I feel sorry for Sally's brother, I don't know if I had ever realized he had no name.

Do you want me to reword it? Or are you just making a musing comment? (I swear I do have a sense of humor—just not when it comes to GAs :) Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Image licenses check out fine.
Not related to the passing or failing of the article, but I do have Chris Cerf's email address, I might ask for a better picture of his father. The selection on Commons is lacking.

That's a good idea! Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, why have you chosen not to use Dr. Seuss' bio infobox photo, of him with this Cat?

No reason really. Just forgot. I'll add it. But to what section? Hmmm... Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More later. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis Woah, Michael Frith! I'm a Muppet fan, and Michael was big in the Jim Henson Company, but I never knew about him working as Dr. Seuss' editor. Anyway, passing section, there's nothing to contest here.

And I just learned about Christopher Cerf's role in Between the Lions from you/his article. So we both learned something today. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

"the most important academic controversy of the cold war." That's a relatively arbitrary start and end for a period of educational history. When I first read it, I thought Donald Pease was suggesting the two sides in the educational debate were in their own cold war. I wonder if "the most important academic controversy" during the Cold War.

I've rewritten it slightly. Hopefully it's to your liking. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When was the 110th Congress? I'm guessing this was 110 years after 1776, but as a non-American, it's a meaningless number for me. It would be good to have a year in the sentence.

year (and wikilink) added. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation

I get that he got the idea for the story in the elevator, but was it the look of the stooped woman that inspired the Cat itself, or is this just a description of who was in the elevator when he got the story idea? It's a great, descriptive quote, and if she was just a bystander and didn't inspire the Cat directly, I'm still in favour of keeping it in. It's just the two sentences aren't connected.

The source I referenced for that part does not elaborate at all. But I did find another source about it. In [this article http://www.npr.org/2007/03/01/7651308/fifty-years-of-the-cat-in-the-hat] (which is already referenced on this wiki article), there's a little audio clip from Anita Silvey that explains the connection more clearly. It's labelled "How the Cat Got His Smile" on the NPR and can be found in the left column of the article I linked to, a little bit below the picture of the Cat balancing himself on the ball. Trouble is, how the heck do I cite that? Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite episode}} works for both radio and TV, so that's probably your best bet. -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so Helen's recovery freed her to do other things? Is that what the last sentence means? Helen's own article doesn't mention the illness at all, let alone the illness in relation to the job.

The source isn't terribly clear. But from what I know about the Geisels' marriage, what he probably means is that there was a riff forming between them. Her illness drove him to her bedside because he felt guilty, etc., but as she recovered he grew more distant again. Helen ultimately committed suicide—probably because of a combination of her illnesses and his unfaithfulness. He married Audrey Stone Dimond about a year after Helen's death. Trouble is, Pease doesn't exactly say that, so I didn't want to put words in his mouth. What do you think I should do? Bobnorwal (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the explanation. It seems like the article would be going down too much of a rabbit hole into a messy, tabloid-like biography. While this all is certainly relevant to his bio page on WP and hers, it doesn't bare enough relevance on Cat. In retrospect, what you have already works, it's clear enough for this purpose.

Just a tiny bit more to come. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've replied above re: citing NPR, and not needing to write further about Helen, as you've demonstrated that the situation is much to deep to discuss briefly in an article about the book, so "as is" is best.

As to Sally's brother not having a name, I was indeed just musing about it. All throughout the article, there's been plenty moments where I've paused to appreciate what you've scoped out and included.

I'm going to give you a pre-emptive pass, in anticipation of that one last reference; it's a strong article on the book! -- Zanimum (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zanimum. As you probably know, when someone compliments your work on Wikipedia it just kinda makes your day. So often it feels like you're toiling in obscurity. I mean, is anyone really going to read that article about asexual fresh water mollusk? But that's... I've already what I need to say, but just to summarize: Thanks. :)

Have a good one. Bobnorwal (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]