Talk:Centipede Press

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 14 February 2017 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Concerns

The banner noting this article's promotional content is appropriate. I'm especially concerned about the apparent attempt to inherit notability from authors or specific titles associated with the press. This may be the case for the citations currently numbered 5 to 25 and 32 to 41. I note that much of this was removed by DGG with the comment "remove promotional section" when he accepted AfC [1], but was restored a few days later by the article's creator [2]. This leaves one with questions about AfC integrity. - Brianhe (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations 5-25 are all from media (largely print and mostly international) outside of Centipede's own book output. They are recognized, impartial reviews in journals and newspapers. The author did replace some, but not all, deleted text but it appears that the language was changed and in some places rearranged. Dcmapa (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language used was overly promotional. I have reverted to DGG's version. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Randykitty: The language may be overly promtional and if you want to clean it up, then fine. Your revert, however, also undid formating fixes, etc. I made such as here and here which had nothing do with being promotional and did not need to be undone. Maybe you just missed those edits, but it would be nice if you went back and re-fixed these things. -- Marchjuly 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marchjuly I made a cleanup pass on the text. - Brianhe (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that this is a notable publishing company within its genre. Unusually for small presses, it actually has coverage of the press itself over and above reviews of the books it publishes. But the resulting article text has tried overly hard to convince the reader (or other WP editors) of its notability. There's no need for that. This should be a short, factual article about the press's history, the types of books it publishes, including the fact that the editions are known for the quality of the artwork and binding and additional commentary on vintage works, and a listing some of the awards the press has won. For example its founder, Jerad Walters, won the 2012 Bram Stoker Award (for specialty press), specifically for Centipede Press, and he, the press, and its individual editions have been nominated for several other ones. The full list is here at the Locus Science Fiction Foundation database. Some of the other suitable sources which are online include:
- Jennings, Dana (October 31, 2014). "Artisanal Terror From Lilliputian Presses". New York Times: C29.
- DeNardo, John (8 January 2014). "Recent Horror Collections from Centipede Press". Kirkus Reviews
- Datlow, Ellen (2012). The Best Horror of the Year. Simon and Schuster (multlple pages)
- Dirda, Mchael (29 October 2016). "Michael Dirda’s Halloween book picks". Washington Post (Michael Dirda has written multiple other reviews of Centipede Press books [3]).

Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]