Talk:The Complete Farmer: Or, a General Dictionary of Husbandry

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article 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. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Capitalization

Is there a reason why the article title and usage within the article is different from Wikipedia's general style as described at MOS:CT? Shouldn't it be The Complete Farmer: Or, a General Dictionary of Husbandry? Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 20:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The (initial) capitalization is just, what I found in the first secondary sources used. I noticed by now, other sources use other kinds of capitalization, and there is no standard. In this case following Wikipedia's general style might be a better alternative. -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background; I've made the change. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 23:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic

The topic of this article is a book, but the article seems to be more diligent about covering the topic of the book than the book itself. Shouldn't the content be edited to cover only the book? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is designed to do both. I have given it a (second) try to illustrate and explains some more of the content of this work, something I also found in Smollett's "1768 review" of the work. Since it again raises questions, it might be a better idea to remove the whole section (or move it to Wikiquote, where such quotes are more common). -- Mdd (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]