Talk:Children's geographies

Untitled

Perhaps it will be good to invite some notable children's geographers to have a discussion here on the representation of children's geographies on Wikipedia. It is after a relatively newer strand of Geography that is only about 15-20 years in terms of the volume of work generated in journals.Themechacat 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice, thankyou to whoever made this - I never got around to it.

I'll add a link to the H. Geog homepage and template --Cooper-42 (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be mention of Holloway's book --http://books.google.ca/books/about/Children_s_Geographies.html?id=vRbNfufCCpMC (Frederika Eilers (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)) 10 Sept 2012

Essay

A lot of this reads like someone's undergraduate essay and doesn't feel encyclopedic. Not quite sure what it is specifically, but I don't understand why I'm being told about Deleuze and still don't come away with a concise understanding of his specific significance to children's geographies... 153.246.179.159 (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested copy edit almost completed

I've done the major part of the copy edit, but I came to the Talk page before going over it once more so I could see if there were any points made here that I might want to pick up on when I do that. I have to agree with you, @153.246.179.159, that I've come away feeling that I really don't understand what I'm being told ... but not only about Deleuze but also the topic, despite having a master's degree in sociology and a doctorate in education in "real life."

Requested copy edits are mainly to clean up any formatting and clarity gremlins, although we who do them often decide to do a bit more editing above and beyond these basics. In order to do that sort of editing, I think you need someone in the actual field of children's geographies, however—ideally someone able to do a good job of making the topic understandable as well as more interesting to general readers. Augnablik (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Copy edit now 100% done

After quite a few hours of "major surgery," I think the article is now —in addition to cleaner in terms of formatting—much clearer because I reworded a number of section and subsection headings that I think fit more closely with the respective discussion. Now I can say I think the article is more readable, but would still recommend further review by an expert (or several).

There are some issues with a few citations. Most of them look like this: (Spencer, 2007; Pryce, 2012).[48]. But a few look like this, without a reference at the end: (Aviram and Talmi, 2004). Frankly, I don't think I've ever seen author-date citations including the equivalent of a footnote, but I just wanted to call attention to the occasional variation in format.