Talk:Children's literature criticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to children's and young adult literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project. Children and Young Adult Literature Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Tasks you can do: WikiProject Children's Literature Open Tasks 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. Update: Author Biography articles and write about new books written for children Expand: articles in the Demonata series by Darren Shan Create new articles relating to Children's Literature Add this template ( {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} ) to the talk pages of articles relating to Children's Literature. Expand and Edit Portal:Children and Young Adult Literature Cooperate with Wikipedians belonged to similar WikiProjects Discuss matters involving Children's literature on this wikiproject's talk page Cleanup the Philip Ardagh article. edit

[edit] references

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)

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)