Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Children's literature/archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portal:Children's literature edit

Statistics: 10 rotating images in the Intro, 10 Selected articles, all FA-class, 13 Selected biographies, all GA-class or higher, 21 Selected pictures, 20 sets of 3 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, and a Rotating In this month section.

Looking for any feedback/comments prior to WP:FPORTC. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 18:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left notices for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discworld, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oz, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Lemony Snicket task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inheritance Cycle, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redwall, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Harry Potter, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Artemis Fowl, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fablehaven. -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some of the quotes from non-public domain texts (Anne of Green Gables, Harry Potter, TH White, ...)? According to Wikipedia:Non-free content, these shouldn't be used as mere decoration, as is the case here, but only "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Fram (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - I hadn't that of that before. However, I don't think that the quotes are "mere decoration". I would say that the portal would be deficient in representing children's literature if it didn't include quotations from texts after 1923, wouldn't you? In fact, I would say it would it would quite biased. Awadewit (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the price we have to pay for being a free encyclopedia. The illustrtations at children's literature or comics are also all public domain or something comparable. If you feel that having only quotes from before 1923 or thereabouts would be unfairly biased, then don't have quotes at all. Fram (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't have to pay that price - that is your interpretation of "fair use". Mine is different. And considering the tiny percentage of these works we are quoting, this is much less of a copyright imposition than a fair use music cover. I assume you will help us redo all of this work, since it takes a great deal of time to assemble a wide range of quotes? Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. Why should I clean up your mess? Fram (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We will work on removing the disputed quotes. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram (talk · contribs): Please, re-check Portal:Children's literature/Selected quote. Let me know if it is know satisfactory? -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something, I see no difference, all the quotes are still there? Could you give me a diff of what you mean, as I don't see it, and checking the history shows one recent edit by you that doesn't make a difference for this though. Fram (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of quotes. Try refreshing and purging your cache. -- Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean, thanks. I believe that quote 5 (Pooh) and 14 (Anne of Green Gables) are both still copyrighted (author's death less than 70 years ago), if I am mistaken about these I have no more objections of course. Fram (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I removed them. Those quotes are no longer there. They are gone from the page. They have ceased to be. They are no more. I could go on, but I digress ... :P — Satisfactory, now? -- Cirt (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, thanks! Fram (talk) 07:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 20 free quotes. And I don't think of the previous iteration as a "mess," Fram, simply a different interpretation of fair use. Please collaborate in a friendly manner! Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

"The Children's literature Portal" looks like an odd mixture of capital and lowercase letters to me.
The lead feels a little short
I think I've fixed all the "nineteenth century" --> "19th century" etc examples (per MOS) but keep an eye-out for any I've missed.
Captain Marvel (featured article, featured content) is a dablink. Should it be Captain Marvel (DC Comics)? Incidentally, this was delisted in Feb 2010.
If the featured content box is going to be updated manually rather than by a bot, then I'd suggest adding piping and italics as appropriate.
Any particular reason not to include the FLs and GAs in the featured content box (with an appropriate rename?)
I'm struggling, from the blurb, to see why Madonna, Christopher Smart and Oscar Wilde are included in the biographies section. I assume that Madonna is included because she's written "the fastest-selling children's picture book of all time", to quote her article, but her work as a children's author goes unmentioned in the blurb. Similar problems with Wilde and Smart.
I think that the articles section needs bumping up with GA articles. It's quite an eclectic selection of 10 articles at the moment, but there's the opportunity to include classic examples (old and new) of children's literature such as Watership Down, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, The Snowman and a Harry Potter story.

Hope this helps, perhaps more later. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll start working on these on the weekend. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the capitalization in the title.
I removed Captain Marvel.
I added FLs to the featured cotent box. Let us keep it to "featured" content.
I removed Madonna.
We will work on adding more selections, and expanding to include GA selections.-- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about expanding the lead - could you let me know what you think needs to be added?
I've added more "Selected articles," now that we expanded to include GAs as well.
I've fixed the Smart and Wilde bios.

Thanks again for your feedback! Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 (expanding the lead) - I had a look at the main article, which isn't in great shape, to see what could be used. Perhaps something on illustrations and illustrators? But as this portal extends beyond children's literature in content, what about mentioning Young-adult fiction or similar You could have it as a new section, perhaps, with a new bold title link e.g. Portal:University of Oxford/Intro. I just felt that, for such a large topic, a six-sentence introduction was too thin. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John Carter:

Tend to agree about the potential dubiousness of Madonna. Also have some question about classifying To Kill a Mockingbird as children's literature, because it seems to me that at the time of publication it wasn't counted as such. I know the definition of what is and isn't childrren's literature changes a lot over time, but even so a book about the "was it rape?" question might strike a lot as at best dubiously children's literature; Young adult literature, maybe - children's literature, maybe not. If YA literature is to be included in the portal, that would be fine, but I'm not sure that the first section of the portal as is leads people to think that such is included. And, maybe, inclusion of a few more books, particularly as mentioned by Bencherlite above, might not be a bad idea. If it were possible, maybe having 12 selections (or 52, for the truly dedicated) selected works included might be a good idea; that might also allow for regular appearance of Christmas-related stories at the relevant time, for example. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Madonna.
To Kill a Mockingbird is most definitely related to the subject matter and topic of this portal.
Young adult literature is within the general body of the subject of Children's literature.
We will add more GA selections. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TKAM is a children's book - it is one of the most widely-assigned texts in middle schools and high schools in the US. It is also a frequently challenged book! Interestingly, most of the books on the "100 most banned books" list are children's books. Since the definition of children's literature changes over time, as you point out, we have a variety of texts here - some that weren't originally children's lit but are now, some that were children's lit when they were published but no longer, etc. Also, YA lit is usually included in children's literature. So, for example, when I teach my survey of children's lit, I teach YA lit, too. These definitions are so vague, that trying to parse them too much invites more headaches than such a division is worth. See what you think about the additions. Awadewit (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 20 articles look like very good choices. John Carter (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.