User talk:JoshEnte
Ghost Radio
[edit]Hi JoshEnte, I saw your new draft at WP:EAR. Please move it to a subpage in your userspace and then I'll be glad to offer some suggestions. Cheers, --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the draft a little to make it comply with The Manual of Style and WP's neutral point of view policy. I also added a {{reflist}} template to display the refs properly. – ukexpat (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ukexpat beat me to it. Once you move the page into article space you'll want to add a couple of categories, and then we'll see what happens. I think you've got enough in there to establish notability. Let me know when it's out there and I'll watchlist it. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried rewriting the reception section of the article, and to be honest, I'm having a hard time doing it for the following reason: how can I make it sound like it's not an advertisement (which it definitely is not and I don't intend it to be in the least, which would obviously be against the rules to begin with) when in fact that vast majority of reviews for the book have been positive? Any suggestions? I personally don't think the article violates any rule of neutrality to state the fact of the matter, which is the generally widespread (even if not unanimous) critical success of the book. JoshEnte (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. I think the bigger challenge will actually come around notability. I read WP:NB again, and you might be on shaky ground with the non-trivial coverage part. I don't know, but I'm not sure that the short reviews at eg Pub. Weekly would be considered non-trivial. Anyway, you might as well move it into article space and see what happens. --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried rewriting the reception section of the article, and to be honest, I'm having a hard time doing it for the following reason: how can I make it sound like it's not an advertisement (which it definitely is not and I don't intend it to be in the least, which would obviously be against the rules to begin with) when in fact that vast majority of reviews for the book have been positive? Any suggestions? I personally don't think the article violates any rule of neutrality to state the fact of the matter, which is the generally widespread (even if not unanimous) critical success of the book. JoshEnte (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Before I take down the advertising warning and risk a quick-tempered editor's deletion, I just want to clarify notability/triviality - isn't it notable to include the critical reception regardless; I mean, people who want to learn about the book almost certainly will want to know whether or not critics approved of it or not? The length of the review is more trivial than anything else in my mind - most book reviews that are not some sort of larger featured article tend to be as long as the ones (both positive and negative) currently represented in the article. Does this make any sense? And thanks again for your help and participation!JoshEnte (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Notability has a particular meaning here - it's the way we determine if a topic is worthy of inclusion or not. As to critical reception, that has to be balnced against our desire for a neutral point of view. So, subject to notability, we can identify that a book exists and has certain characteristics, but we ought not to express an opinion as to whether it's a good book. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)