Talk:Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction

Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 17, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Children's literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Literature Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 March 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Children's Fantasy Literature is the first work to address the genre's 500-year history in depth?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 22:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Mostly fine, though queries. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Mostly fine, though queries. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): No issues. b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reputable and the expected mix of academic, literary, and general interest. c (OR): Was queried at DYK, but no issues. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig test is clean. Manual comparison of other sources to article text does not reveal issues. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): No issues. b (focused): No issues. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: I was unable to find sources demonstrating points of view on the subject not used in the article. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No issues. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): One image, appropriately justified fair use. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No issues.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 22:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a beautiful little article, though I have some notes.

Your lead is very short (the second paragraph is really a half-paragraph at best). It would be worth expanding the second reception-focused paragraph somewhat. This is also a minor POV issue; the majority of the reviews are clearly positive and it's correct to focus on them, but the book did receive some criticism. The second paragraph can be expanded to discuss what specific points reviewers (both academic and general) addressed, what specific qualities they (usually) liked, and what the minority of more negative opinions found wanting.

Expanded. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions in the second paragraph of the Background section are a little vague. I recognize the vagueness is feature rather than bug. However, it may be worth adding additional context, such as by discussing specifically how they related these qualities to the books analysed.

I found a more specific statement about the age of protagonists in the books they look at; added. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Englishness" linked to "Britishness" is, to put it delicately, a matter of ethnocultural tension. I'd drop that link. While I respect it's what the book uses, I'm also unconvinced we here on Wikipedia should be using the italics; our Manual of Style is not the publishing house's. Given that the word is specifically from the source and refers to a precise phenomenon there, it also might be worth putting in quotes, but this is just a suggestion. (Is "renewed sensibility of Englishness" itself a direct quote?)

Unlinked; I was able to quote "encouragement of Englishness". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The identification throughout the article of individuals solely as 'scholars' is ambiguous, not to mention repetitive. It should be possible to contextualize their specific fields and institutional affiliations further -- although I get that it's a tricky compromise to find a succinct summary of an academic career that doesn't drown the reader in detail. This is particularly important for Levy, who should certainly be notable, but doesn't appear to currently have an article. I'd suggest redlinking him, but Michael Levy is a disambiguation page, so by itself a link would be inappropriate; the usual alternative would be creating the disambig (e.g. Michael Levy (historian)) and linking that, but without further context as to his actual profession it's unclear what title the redlink should have.

Changed the lead from "scholar" to "author". For Levy, I think the linked article should be enough for context? The two scholars in reception are both English professors; I contextualized the first one (Farris) and dropped the other's descriptor. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend dropping the parentheses in the very last line of the article; the text they cover is incorporated in the article and doesn't need it. (In general, I think there's rarely cause for parentheses in mainspace. Most things expressed in them can either be simply included in the text, or restructured as footnotes.)

Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these notes aside, this is good work, and I'm looking forward to passing it. Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: I think I've responded to all comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the edits, and happy to pass the article. Vaticidalprophet 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]