Talk:SparkNotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Criticism

The Honors and AP English teachers at my school heavily criticize SparkNotes for its unreliability... Anyone else have this situation? If so, I think there should be a section on Critcism. 69.19.14.36 04:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Most criticism of it is unfounded i believe. I find that most teachers criticize it because it's "cheating" to find notes of a book, almost entirely eliminating the need to read the book. The "unreliability" i hear mostly stems from the dynamicness of Sparknotes and the fact that most teachers cannot keep up with providing tests that cover material not in sparknotes. Liquidtenmillion 22:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Liquidtenmillion, most criticism of sparknotes is born out of frustration. Jcp20 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I would like a criticisms section. Sparknotes encourage students to not read the actual book. Also, I have seen simple spelling mistakes on the website. 68.197.167.243 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion on SparkNotes, and the fact that there are spelling errors on the site, doesn't matter whatsoever in the creation of a Criticism section. - JNighthawk 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that this matters, everyone who only used Sparknotes without reading the original source material would have real difficulties... unless they were uber-smart, and in that case, they would have read the original material anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talkcontribs) 11:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Press release

This article reads like a press release, especially non-NPOV phrases like "SparkNotes has become an emblem of the recent college-oriented counterculture around the country." What does that even mean? An emblem? I've added some citation needed markers, but the page as it currently exists belongs more properly on SparkNotes's own site, not wikipedia. thither 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done the best I can to make this article a bit more NPOV. I don't want to seem as though I'm waging a one-person war against the site, but the article was terrible and not getting better. It could use a lot more work, but at least now it's a little less PR-looking. Does anybody actually know about the history of this site, current employees excluded?--thither 08:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

citation is needed for everything [citation needed]74.227.246.52 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible writing

Oh man, the writing quality was disastrous on this one. I fixed it up as best I could, but it's still not very good. The article should probably be longer and needs more citations. Anyone want to tackle that, feel free... Lcduke 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Lcduke

I don't think the article really has a problem with citations, most of it is easily summarizable from the web site and print catalogs. I'm moving the cite tag from "teachers often accuse" to the sentence that talks about how teachers feel, though.. As for it being longer, well, it was. Sighrik 02:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)