Talk:Little Red Riding Hood

This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 12 August 2007 and demoted on 19 February 2008. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

This article used to be a good article. It was promoted on 19 February 2008 and demoted on 15 February 2011. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

There is still one redlink left --Eptalon 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)No redlinks left; it is a valid candidate. What does the community think? --Eptalon 06:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Much better than when I first critiqued it (oh, wait, that would be due to my re-write of it.. n/m) but still a couple small things. Image size is overpowering the article (minor fix). Removing the link to Plot (redlink) and then explaining it just to get around having a red-link - Either the word plot needs to be reworded in such a way that it is simple without linking, or the article would be needed and the link restored. Defining terms not directly tied into the article just does not seem like something a very good article would do. (and there is that missing space on the definition as well (Minor). Tales and Stories of the Past with Morals. Tales of Mother Goose should probably be linked. The article is relatively short. Shrink the image and its external links start to show on the first screen; much of its 3k total size is in its interwiki links. This could be made up in the section on meaning and adding a bit on symbology in the tale. (red cloak, rebirth, Jonah and the whale, etc.) -- Creol(talk) 07:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have made the article a little longer. I have put in adaptations (notably the opera, and the cartoon by Tex Avery). I have also put in some interpretations (suppressed Riding Hood, The Red cape being a symbol for menstruation, the story being a warning against being raped). Adds about half a screen to it. Of course, I stubbed all redlinks. --Eptalon 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to change the sentence structure in the first part. I know we only use simple sentence structure, but unless we use more than one clause in some sentences it just won't sound right, or just sound patronising. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer7 (talk • contribs)

I think that sentences that have two parts should be OK for our readers. The second part is either put in with commas, or pronouns are used to link it. We do not want to end up with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity - In Words of Four Letters or Less. This is all simple language. But because it is so simple it is very hard to understand. Better use language that is a little more complex, but easier to understand (I am a non-native English speaker, btw.). So yes, I would definitely vote for making the first sections a little more complex than they are now. --Eptalon 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

spoiler warning

Do we really need the spoiler warning?

The spoiler warning is very appropriate for a different class of story, such as a murder-mystery novel, but not Little Red Riding Hood.

Considering that this story is perhaps the best known story on the planet, all simple readers (be they child or adult english learner) should be able to read this summary unfetted.

I agree entirely with the above comment. I think that the spoiler warning is pointless and disruptive in this case. Amandajm (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Article demotion

• Lon Po Po is an ancient Chinese version of Little Red Riding Hood which won the 1990 Randolph Caldecott Medal for its watercolour and pastel illustrations by Young. 1. I may be missing something, but who is "Young"? 2. Might be simpler to split into two sentences. 3. Be nice to link and create Randolph Caldecott Medal. 4. I need a reference for the Caldecott.

• In this French painting by François Richard Fleury, perhaps the girl will escape. Could be reworded to sound more encyclopedic

• Be nice for the references to be in the appropriate cite format.

• François Adrien Boieldieu (1775 - 1834) made an opera from the story. Years should be {{ndash}}ed.

• The French audio version in the other websites... I don't think it serves much good to a Simple English reader

• Roald Dahl re-told the story in funny poem about Little Red Riding Hood. 1. Is "funny" needed here? 2. If so, an "a" should be added after "in".

• A picture by a famous French illustrator, Gustave Dore Seems random. Relate it to the article.

• It was first written down in the late 1600s. Needs a reference

More to come. Albacore (talk · changes) 21:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Telling the story to young children

This section is not a how to do it. This section describes the traditional way in which this story has been told, aloud, during the 20th century. This is part of the story's history. It is an important part, in a world where most young children get their entertainment from Telly-tubbies and very few children ever have an adult tell a story without a book. This section is about the oral tradition of "Little Red Riding Hood".

Roald Dahl retold the story if a "funny" poem. Yes, "funny" is necessary, unless you want to use the much more difficult word "humorous". Amandajm (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It's beyond my comprehension why you didn't add the "a" when you noticed it was missing. Amandajm (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Big weekend: great source

While cleaning up this article for Big Weekend, I found this excellent source by the Association for Library Services to Children. It is a wonderful analysis written by an expert whose credentials are given, and its own reference section has more sources in it. I recommend it to anyone who wants to work more on this article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)