Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Collaboration

Welcome to the collaboration department of the Children's Literature WikiProject! This department is intended to bring attention to articles of high importance to the project which are currently of a low quality. The department will promote these articles, and will regularly choose one of them which all project members are asked to contribute to as much as they feel able.

The current Collaboration Article is Curious George (book). Please visit this article and contribute to it in any way you can.

At the beginning of the Collaboration, it was rated as High importance and Stub class. So far it has improved to Stub class.

If you wish to be updated about the collaboration articles for this WikiProject, please use {{WP:CHL COLLAB}}.

Current article

The discussion which led to the current Collaboration Article's nomination is as follows:

Curious George (book)

This book is widely known across many countries and has received extensive media coverage making it one that should be fairly easy to find WP:RS for. The article is currently a stub (and not close to a Start) and is rated as a High importance article. I therefore feel like it would be a good candidate for attention and collaboration. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - this one really needs improving. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - This is a good one for improving on. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Support although I might not be able to help much. Certainly seems a good candidate.--Plad2 (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Approved strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So, when is this one going to begin? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at this properly, I confess that I'm a bit puzzled. This page is just about the original book, right? There is already a much more developed article about the Curious George series of books as well as articles about the film, the TV series; a List of Curious George episodes and a stub about the video game. The authors also have articles here and here. So am I correct in thinking that we're collaborating to develop this into a better article about the book, rather than trying to duplicate anything on the other pages?--Plad2 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added some suggestions and possible sources to the Talk page. And I've had a go at tidying up the synopsis at my Sandbox sub-page but I'm hampered by not having a copy of the book myself to fill in the gaps of the story. I don't think this is quite ready to paste into the article Main page but happy to do so if that's the best way to get everyone working together on this. Do we work on the article Main Page or do we set up a Sandbox for the collaborative work? What's the best way of moving this on?--Plad2 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright I've added an "About the authors" section with references. Does anyone want to see if it is better than a stub now? Jakob 20:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

To nominate an article as a future collaboration article, please add it at the bottom of the nominated collaboration articles section below under a new level three heading. Please leave your signature after each nomination.

Anyone can register an opinion on a nomination. Please use '''Support''' or '''Oppose''' to state your view, followed by any comments you wish to leave. Please sign all responses.

Before nominating any article, please check that it has not been nominated in the past. All past nominations can be found on this page.

To close a nomination, please first wait for a clear consensus to be established. If you feel this has happened, please use {{Approved}} or {{Declined}} to close the nomination, and sign it. Please wait three days to allow for other users to disagree with the closing before moving the nomination either to Upcoming collaboration articles or Failed nominations.

Nominated collaboration articles

If you think you know an article which would make a good Collaboration Article, please discuss it here. Before nominating any articles, please check all current and past discussions to avoid double nominations.

Children's poetry

This is a core article to the topic of children's literature, but it is currently only two sentences long. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I'm surprised there is not more on this. But how much can really be said about children's poetry? Perhaps a list of notable children's poets? I don't know. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but I feel that this only makes the article more suitable. If individual editors can't think of any major improvements, perhaps a collaboration will work better. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 10:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right (as always ) so I suppose I should Support this nomination. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a page that you could compare this to? This was one of the first pages I looked at improving when I became active again on Wikipedia, but I didn't even know where to begin. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Haiku. I'm not really sure. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the subject is a combination of children's literature and poetry, both of which are much longer and better formed. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, but I guess I still feel like it's a poor choice for our collaboration because the topic is so huge. I would tend to think very specific areas would work better for this sort of effort. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions? I only nominated this because it is a obvious article to try improving and this department needs a trial run. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What are the criteria? Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 13:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

At the moment, anything we can get consensus on. Suggestions for some official criteria would be welcome, though. Perhaps something like High or Top importance, C class or below... strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 15:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should be High or Top importance. I also feel that priority should be given to articles below C-class. This means, (in my opinion), that we should start with Top Importance stubs. I hope this helps. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's a very broad subject. That make's it difficult to do stuff with. I'm kind of unsure as to whether this is such a good one now. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Children's literature timeline

This article is badly written and, considering its importance, should be of a much higher quality. The only problem as I see it is what makes things notable enough to put in. Anyway, it's got to be worth a try. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there not an overlap with the Children's literature#History section, which is also not great? How would one determine what counted as a major milestone or turning point?--Plad2 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...maybe some interpretation of major milestone could be found in the notability section of the main project page. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 07:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The one problem I see in collaborating on this is that everyone has a different view on which books are notable enough to put in the timeline. For example, one person might think that all the books that won awards should be included, but another person might think that all the bestselling books should be included. Jakob 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming collaboration articles

This is a record of article discussions which have been closed as supported. Please do not propose articles for discussion here; use Nominated collaboration articles.

Past collaboration articles

This is a list of recent articles chosen to be the Collaboration Article. Please do not renominate past Collaboration Articles unless they failed to progress significantly during their first collaboration. This list will be archived periodically.

Failed nominations

This is a record of nominations for the collaboration articles which have failed to gain support. This list will be archived periodically. Please do not renominate these articles without giving a good reason why they should be reconsidered.