Talk:Children's literature criticism

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

Top

This article has been rated as Top-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

references[edit]

I know in general people find super-long bibliographies to be a negative in wikipedia pages. Yet since this article is about theory -- and controversial theory at that, since many people don't believe the topic exists as a serious scholarly field (and child-centric and text-centric theorists often disagree about what's been said) -- I feel the references are necessary. On the other hand, much of this information is duplicated in Nodelman (2005). What do people think? Keep the endless list of references?

I just hate how defensive children's lit scholars always have to be. "Look, we're real! See! Publications!" Deborah-jl 14:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say keep the bibliography. It allows people who come to the page to do research if they so choose. Awadewit 04:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Children's literature criticism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012011434/http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~nodelman/resources/allbib.htm to http://ion.uwinnipeg.ca/~nodelman/resources/allbib.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]