Talk:The Discarded Image
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
I have recreated this page after coming across what I think is one of the most disappointing incidents of administration here I have seen in a while. The handling of User talk:Ggggggggggggggg12's first foray into Wikipedia, while I'm sure it broke no rules, did not forward the writing of an encyclopedia. This user did not need to be banned, have their content immediately deleted with little intelligible explanation, and their subsequent name change request ignored. A little human understanding and some polite explanation and help would probably have resulted in a new, productive user. As a result it appears they were driven off. Perhaps most disappointing is that what content they did write was not even restored. It's saddening that strict and unwavering enforcement of a baffling array of rules has replaced common sense. Trollderella 23:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
100% agrred no ifs or buts LB22 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Sentence 2 begins, "On one level it is a work ...", but no "other levels" are discussed. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could discuss these other levels.
Use of the word "engaging" is problematic, as it is does not present a neutral point of view. "At the same time, Lewis takes his reader on an engaging tour of ..." The use of the word "engaging" is also superflous and could be removed without getting rid of information.
Presentation of reviews appears to be an endorsement of the book, again violating NPOV. This could be easily fixed by prefacing the review section with "Critical reviews of $book were generally positive, for example ..." That shifts the reviews section from being about the quality of the book itself (such POV doesnt belong), towards being about the impact of the book and the reviews of it (that definitely belongs).
I'm not going to make these edits myself because apparently this article has become political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.237.75 (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox - and citation requests
I have added an infobox and the citation requests are there primarily to prompt editors to more finely grain the referencing. For instance just to quote "the observer" and then give no further details makes the information not easily WP:Verifiable. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
