Talk:Damaged Goods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Doctor Who, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Doctor Who and its spin-offs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] LGBT category
While there's no doubting that the homosexuality of a couple of the characters does impact on the plot of Damaged Goods at times, personally I think that including it in the "LGBT literature" category may be stretching things a little. At the end of the day it is just a TV tie-in novel, after all. (Albeit an excellent one!). Opinions? Angmering 20:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- That category also contains Blake's 7 Fan Fiction, so it's not all high-brow stuff ;-) Tim (meep) 21:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ye Gads, we have an article on that? ;-) Angmering 21:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I would say the category is tendentious. And, unfortunately, the article reads far too much like a fan piece. Charles Matthews 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What the hell?
I'm curious why this book's entry has so much information (most of which isn't even ABOUT the damn book, but rather about the author) when none of the other NA books that I've looked at has more than a summary paragraph.
Why does this book rate such a huge entry while the others get squat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwanderson (talk • contribs) 00:50, April 21, 2008
- Because nobody's taken the time to develop the other articles any further. It's not part of a deliberate policy. I'd hypothesize that this particular novel got the in-depth treatment sooner than the others because its author later went on to spearhead the successful revival of Doctor Who on television, but there's no reason that the other New Adventures couldn't have articles covering as much detail. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
