Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction

Created by Olivaw-Daneel (talk). Self-nominated at 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

• Review underway Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is long enough and new enough. Hook is interesting and supported by the reference. The claims in the introduction are supported with references after being restated in the article. Good job there. i.e. "sixteenth to twenty-first centuries" in the body, and "over a period of 500 years" in the intro.

Sources: 1st reference is an editorial. It does not present anything controversial so it is likely ok to use. In the synopsis section the un-cited end of the 2nd paragraph says: "They also identify a renewed sensibility of Englishness in post-war fantasy; and more generally, indigenous myth and folklore in Australian and Canadian fantasy." <--is this a personal interpretation? synthesis? etc. Finally, I was also going to question the validity of the (

SFADB) awards - but you wrote a wikipedia article about SFADB... which begins to feel like a Walled Garden. I am not seeing organization oversight on the SFADB website and they display Amazon books for sale on the awards page. Bruxton (talk

) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That sentence summarizes an entire chapter; the italic format of Englishness is straight from the book. I've rephrased to (hopefully) make that a bit more clear. Btw, no citations needed in Synopsis per

MOS:NOVELPLOT

; I've only cited direct quotes.

The bottom-left corner of any SFADB page will show a copyright by the Locus Science Fiction Foundation. Also, if you go to Locus' website and mouse over "Resources", you'll find a link to SFADB.

Displaying book-buying links is I think a wide-spread feature; you'll even find it in the awards' own websites. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

(Forgot to ping​.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Several of the references are behind a paywall, like this one - I assume good faith. I have a comment which I hope is constructive. This article has a vocabulary pitched to a highly educated audience. It has a Flesch Kincaid score of 30-50 which is summarized as, "Difficult to read". Rather than hold up the nomination, I am going to ask someone else to take on the review. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the comment. This test says it's "easily understood by 13 to 14 year olds"; regardless, I'd love any specific suggestions for improvement. And I think this is the correct icon for a new review:

  Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do not use the URL method, input the text. "Flesch Reading Ease score: 45.1 Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: difficult to read." "Gunning Fog: 13.3 Gunning Fog scored your text: hard to read." etc. The site measures (7) readability formulas, and scored your text: "difficult to read". I am not saying dumb it down, but there is some
  sesquipedalianism. Regardng the red tick: I did not use it because it says: "Article issues have been resolved and is ready for a new review." But perhaps it is appropriate anyway. Bruxton (talk
  ) 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Agree that any redundancies should be eliminated, but just an observation about the usefulness of that readability test. I checked some of our literature Good and Featured Articles — the Reception sections of Ursula K. Le Guin, A Wizard of Earthsea, The Tombs of Atuan — and their scores all range in the 40s; pretty much identical to this article's Reception. Perhaps the takeaway is that literature articles tend to be harder to read. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the length, sourcing, tone etc all looks fine. Hook is all good. It doesn't seem like the article uses any complex language that wouldn't be found on other Wikipedia page about literature. The synopsis and lead is straightforward, and quotes from reviews can only be changed so much. Terms like mythopoeia are hyperlinked and, imo, necessary. I don't see where any unnecessarily complex or long words were used, where simpler words could be substituted. The lead of today's featured article has a score of 40.3 if you input the text, and the recently featured Olympic Games page has a 34.3 for the lead and 44.4 for the "Modern Games" section. The rest of the article varies and some parts are 46 or 47. Out of DYKs from today, Potamophylax coronavirus has a 39.5 and Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) has a 55.5. I think that's probably an indication that the tool doesn't map to Wikipedia's standards perfectly. I think this nom is ready. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)