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

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Time Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Some reviews that IMHO would satisfy WP:RS:

https://www.nature.com/articles/383228a0
https://www.jstor.org/stable/688147 maybe?
Lebowitz, Joel. "Time's arrow and Archimedes' point, by Huw Price." Physics Today 50, no. 1 (1997): 68-69.
Reviews in Times Literary Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement, New Scientist, any other prominent mainstream media

Also, article title should be just "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point" per WP:CONCISE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also also, per WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources", so any summary of the book should preferably be brief, or based on the secondary sources (such as book reviews), or both. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old Comments

These were some old comments on the header of the draft that I have moved here for posterity:

Comment: This brochure on editing and creating book articles may be helpful as far as the typical sections and so on that are in book articles.
Also, the reason I'm not moving this at the moment is because it's easier to work on an article when it's in draft format. That way if you need to step away, you can leave something unfinished without worry of it being removed as incomplete. That's admittedly more of a personal preference, but I know it's a common one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This needs the following to spiffy the article up:
* Rather than going chapter by chapter the synopsis should give a general overview. Chapter by chapter synopses are too long and are a bit overkill.
* The reception section needs to be more cohesive. Rather than a list of the outlets that have reviewed the work, it's better to have it written more along the lines of "common criticisms are... common elements of praise are...". Reviews can establish notability but it's more helpful information-wise to summarize the commonly cited review elements akin to what you'd see at say, To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Reception or Silent_Spring#Promotion_and_reception.
* This needs a section that covers the book's release(s), such as when it initially released, any subsequent reprints or editions, and so on.
I think that the book is notable, but this just needs to be cleaned to better meet the style guidelines for book articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I published the article

Thanks to ReaderofthePack for their comments. I believe I have addressed the concerns raised:

1) I have added a 'Release' section
2) I have added a sentence common elements to reviews in the 'Reception' section
3) I have not changed the chapter-by-chapter nature of the summary. If someone wants a general overview, they can read the header paragraph, which provides just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredsph (talk • contribs) 10:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]