Talk:The Black Arrow: A Tale of the Two Roses

message: If Robert Louis Stevenson did not like this novel and it is a quality work, imagine the quality of the works he did like. His view of The Black Arrow as "tushery" and his dislike of it are found in his letters. Project Gutenberg etext of The Letters of Robert Louis Stevenson, vol. 1 Articles and discussion are forthcoming on the 1948 and the 1984 films. drboisclair 13:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tushery

message: Is it possible to make this article "GA" or "A" rated? I guess "FA" status is difficult to arrive at.--Drboisclair 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: :Image:RLStevenson BlackArrow.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned we might as well remove that cover. It's just a generic cover with only the title and author on it, no illustration or anything else that adds anything to the article that isn't already there. Shinobu (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could download a different cover that might even be more "decorative" of the story, using all of the safe-guards for images on this website.--Drboisclair (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RLStevenson BlackArrow.jpg

message: I notice that this section doesn't appear to be about criticism primarily. So perhaps you can think of a more appropriate title? Shinobu (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to understand why you do not think that it is about criticism. The author himself judges (critiques) his own work. He is the expert par excellance on his own work. I suppose we could label it "critique" or "literary evaluation." What is your reason for saying that it is not about criticism?--Drboisclair (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: To say that this novel has less importance than the interest of an historian is understating its level of importance. It is a notable work of Robert Louis Stevenson; it has never been out of print; and it has been made the subject of films and television programs throughout the world. I stand by the elevation of this novel to at least "mid" status. Even Catriona or David Balfour is rated "mid" and it is certainly not as well known as The Black Arrow--Drboisclair (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the "low" to "mid" level of Importance 

message: It appears to me that in all the footnotes John Sutherland (modern editor of the book) is accidentally called Robert - no doubt from Stevenson's own name.  The references to his edition are so extensive that correcting this, if I am right, would be quite a job.  I must get hold of his annotated edition before I really make up my mind about the book (especially as Sutherland's critical work elsewhere is interesting).  But I am re-reading "Black Arrow", having read it twice in the past, and knowing a bit more about the historical period now.  So far, I find Stevenson's factual background much harder to relate to history than the article indicates.  The background Wars in the story seem completely amorphous;  I would certainly never have gathered that the Walsinghams represent the Woodvilles.  And it is hard to see how the big battle can be First St Albans, especially as the article additionally mentions an encounter so very different as Tewkesbury.  But with all names fictionalised, in that odd way of old novelists, it is hard to know where you are, either in place or in time.
Rogersansom (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The correction of the first name of the editor of the new edition took relatively less time than I thought by simply searching the sandbox for "Sutherland." I am sorry to say that the error was mine in having "Robert" for "John" here. It would be better in my estimation to readept the Latin abbreviations normally used in footnotes like "ibidem" and "op. cit.", but these have been deemed unWiki.--Drboisclair (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article/Notes 

message: Substituted at 18:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment