Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Books (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Proposed deletions

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Confusion of two publishers, both "Macmillan"

User:Auldhouse recently asked me to look at his article in progress on the Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. (My father was an executive there in the 1960s and early 1970s, so I know a lot about the topic, but it would probably be a conflict of interest for me to be at all significantly involved in the article). In doing so and following up some related topics I noticed that there seem to be a lot of incoming links in various articles to Macmillan Publishers that should be to Macmillan Publishers (United States) or to Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. I took the liberty of changing the redirect Collier Macmillan to point to the latter, but I see this error on both Gone With the Wind and Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the American Macmillan company's biggest bestsellers in two different decades. If those are wrong, a lot else of that sort must be wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not know there were two Macmillan publishers. Thanks for the information. There is a category of Macmillian publishing, and there is this link List of authors of Macmillan Publishing (United_States) for the defunct publishing company, which gives a start for finding books where the infobox link needs a correction. I checked only one, Jack London Call of the Wild, and its link in the infobox is to the article on Macmillan Publishers (United States), though the infobox shortens that to Macmillan in the part after the pipe. It is a confusing name for books published in this century per the article on it, "Pearson acquired the Macmillan name in America since 1998, following its purchase of the Simon & Schuster educational and professional group (which included various Macmillan properties).[1] Pearson sold the Macmillan Reference USA division (which included Scribner Reference) to Thomson Gale in 1999." Will an editor see Macmillan, Simon and Schuster, or Thomson Gale on a book published after 1998-1999? --Prairieplant (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Help with misguided edits on Zadie Smith articles

I noticed today that an unregistered user has inserted reception sections on both White Teeth and The Autograph Man for the sole purpose of sharing negative critiques from one reviewer. It's been a while since I've been an active editor, so I thought I'd send a request here for help on the best way to handle it. --JUN1U5 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Junius49 I looked at White Teeth, and fixed the bare url reference to learn it is from The New Republic in 2000, a reliable source for a review on the novel. Prior to adding the only cited Review to the article, the same IP address had deleted all the sections analyzing the novel (Themes, Teeth and so on), because those sections had no inline citations. The basis for the change is okay, but I would have marked the deleted sections as needing citations, and will now mark the Reviews section as needing to be expanded. If you would like, you could restore the deleted sections in one Undo, I believe, and mark them with citation needed flags (the template citation needed, Template:Citation needed) if you think those sections are well-written but simply lacking reliable sources identified by inline citations. I am no expert on the author Zadie Smith, but suspect there has been much written about these novels and the author as well that ought to be included in the article. --Prairieplant (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Plus I added something on the Talk page here, a list of links to reviews that I found with just one search. I suspect there are more reviews of this book, to give a more complete picture of the Reception, and perhaps Themes as well, than is now in the article. The edit where all the other sections of the article were blanked out is here. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA