Talk:Character sketch

I'd say that if there is going to be an example in this article, it should be a well written one. This one wouldn't fly in Simple English Wikipedia. (Nbmatt 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The whole article is garbage that even Oscar the Grouch wouldn't love. Utgard Loki 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I tried to rewrite it. It still stinks, but at least it's not a dirty joke anymore. Geogre 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was still an orphan. Now it isn't, although people interested in finding parents and children could do a great deal more. I just linked from Theophrastus. If anyone thinks of particular compositions that have articles that are character sketches (like that big blob of them that Carlyle did later in his life), that would do. Utgard Loki 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References? Oh noes!

This article does not cite specific books. This is true. This is also fitting. Common knowledge, in academic parlance, is any fact or series of statements that is contained in three or more sources without deviation. This article's definition of the character sketch is common knowledge. Putting footnotes up in such an instance is not only not necessary, but actively discouraged, as it leads down the "Webster's defines 'bird' as any animal of the order avis'" pathway. If anyone knows of a disagreement or divergent point made in this article, then a "citation needed" would be appropriate. I.e. a reader should know of a thing that requires citation before slapping, "There are no citations!" tags on the article. After all, the article lacks an infobox, too, but surely one of those is not necessary for every article on every subject in every instance! Geogre 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]