Talk:Women Who Work (book)

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

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

POV

ALL the reviews cited in the article are from liberal media outlets and there isn't a single positive review that is cited here. This should include both positive and negative sources, otherwise the conservative media will accuse Wikipedia of being biased again. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to find not just individual reviews but articles summarizing the critical reception, from the most high-profile sources I could find. The BBC, for example, considered the AP review (which I cited WaPo for) rather positive; The Atlantic and The Independent (the latter of which again is British, not American) say the majority critical reception is negative. If you know of sources that say the book received more positive reviews than I gave it credit for, by all means present them. It is, however, not Wikipedia's fault if the book was widely panned, and it would be not neutral to scrape up every positive review we can find just to make the critical reception look more balanced than it is. If conservative media accuse Wikipedia of being biased because it accurately summarizes the facts, so be it. Huon (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since no evidence of significant omitted viewpoints has been presented, I have removed the maintenance tags. Huon (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article has been tagged because, quite the opposite, it supposedly gives too much weight to some (which?) "ideas, incidents, or controversies". I don't see it. It's an accurate summary of what reviews, and review aggregators, have said about the book. There aren't even any controversies mentioned, unless the fact that critics mostly didn't like it is supposed to be controversial. Since - despite this talk page discussion which predates the newest tagging - no specific shortcomings of the article have been pointed out, I'll remove the tag. Huon (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]