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

{{DYKsubpage
|monthyear=January 2022 
|passed=<!--When closing discussion, enter yes, no, or withdrawn -->
|2=
{{DYK conditions}}
{{DYK header|Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction}}
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction|Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction}}
<!--

                   Please do not edit above this line unless you are a DYK volunteer who is closing the discussion.

-->
* ... that '''''[[Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction|Children's Fantasy Literature]]''''' was the first work on the genre's 500-year history? <small>Source: {{doi|10.1353/uni.2017.0034}}: "Michael Levy and Farah Mendlesohn trace the development of fantasy literature for children from its roots in sixteenth-century fable and folklore to its manifestations in the present day teen market. [...] the book is the first to put the study of children's literature and the study of the fantastic in extended dialogue."</small>
**
** ''Comment'': My fifth DYK nom, so no QPQ needed
<small>Created by [[User:Olivaw-Daneel|Olivaw-Daneel]] ([[User talk:Olivaw-Daneel|talk]]). Self-nominated at 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC).</small>
<!--
* {{DYKmake|Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction|Olivaw-Daneel|subpage=Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction}}
-->
* Review underway [[User:Bruxton|Bruxton]] ([[User talk:Bruxton|talk]]) 00:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
:[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] 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: <u>"They also identify a renewed sensibility of {{em|Englishness}} in post-war fantasy; and more generally, indigenous myth and folklore in Australian and Canadian fantasy."</u> <--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 [http://www.sfadb.com/Farah_Mendlesohn books for sale on the awards page]. [[User:Bruxton|Bruxton]] ([[User talk:Bruxton|talk]]) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
:: That sentence summarizes an entire chapter; the italic format of {{em|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 [http://www.locusmag.com 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 [https://www.mythsoc.org/awards/awards-2018-remarks.htm awards' own websites]. [[User:Olivaw-Daneel|Olivaw-Daneel]] ([[User talk:Olivaw-Daneel|talk]]) 04:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
:: (Forgot to ping{{hp|Bruxton}}.) [[User:Olivaw-Daneel|Olivaw-Daneel]] ([[User talk:Olivaw-Daneel|talk]]) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
*[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Several of the references are behind a paywall, like [https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/suitable-for-children/ 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 readability tests|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.  [[User:Bruxton|Bruxton]] ([[User talk:Bruxton|talk]]) 16:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
*: Thanks for the comment. [https://www.webfx.com/tools/read-able/check.php?uri=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FChildren%2527s_literature&tab=Test+By+Url 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: 
*:: [[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] [[User:Olivaw-Daneel|Olivaw-Daneel]] ([[User talk:Olivaw-Daneel|talk]]) 20:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
:::* Do not use the URL method, [https://readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php 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.  [[User:Bruxton|Bruxton]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Olivaw-Daneel|Olivaw-Daneel]] ([[User talk:Olivaw-Daneel|talk]]) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->