Talk:About a Boy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories 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 and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern

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.

I'm not sure of the purpose of this page as part of an encyclopedia? ...DW

I agree, I did some minor copyediting, but the article needs much work, is way too long (plot summary could be considerably trimmed) and is more of a personal review than an encyclopedia article. -- Lexor 11:59, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The following is an interesting phenomenon which I've come across on numerous Wikipedia pages: People agree that a particular article needs rewriting, trimming, or whatever, but no one actually does anything. Then someone else comes along and makes some other change or changes.
In this case here someone decided that it would be a good idea to have a discussion of the movie version sooner than at the very end of an admittedly rather long article. However, similarities and differences to the book are described there, and details from the plot are referred to. So when you read the article now you are confronted with references (e g "the Royston episode") you have no chance of understanding.
If I happened to come across this page for the first time now, that's what I'd criticize. --KF 10:30, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Little Red Hen" syndrome

  • grin* I can explain my motives, but I can't vouch for anyone else's. I'm in the middle of a project right now, and while performing other duties, I see that this article is a combination of book & film summaries. Later on I'll get round to splitting them, but for now I put the "split" tag in so I can find it later. Cheers, Her Pegship 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Split looks done. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Any editing or additional material can be helpful"

That's part of the definition of a "stub" on the quality scale. Well, if you have a look at the pre-February 2006 article you will realise that it was much longer, but I'm certainly not going to add that again. Could someone please tell me what the desirable length and contents really are? <KF> 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)