Wikipedia talk:Children's, adult new reader, and large-print sources questionable on reliability

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children's, adult new reader, and large-print sources questionable on reliability page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Wikipedia essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Principal author's note

The following was titled and moved by another editor from the essay to here as unsigned on June 30, 2018. Nick Levinson (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A similar proposal was largely in the middle of being rejected by consensus at Talk for Wikipedia: Identifying Reliable Sources and a Request For Comments was not responded to by an RfC editor before archiving and the removal of the comment request. Consensus can change but a new ground may be needed. The original editor of this essay favors elevation to guideline or policy if a consensus to do that can be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Levinson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edits in June, 2018

In response to edits of June 30th, I edited today as follows: restored the image (because Wikipedia prefers having images), "Problems" as a section title (because the singular omits plural implied in a subsection), that all quotations need citations, a definition to the first place where it was needed and cut it from later in the essay, that vanity books get edited but less so (this being about reliability and omitting this may lead to a misunderstanding), "usually" as fit qualification (omitting seems crisper but reduces precision), definition of "adult-level" (viz., not porn), policy on self-reference (because a policy is more authoritative than a guideline), the synonymy (to support searches within Wikipedia), hyphens to most instances of "large print" (because "large-print" is more precise than "large print" because, for example, Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary is a large book in print, therefore a large print book, but is not (as far as I've seen) not a large-print book), the link on large-print books (the linked-to article being relevant), "musical" for scores (to avoid readers getting confused with sports scores), the See Also section with the Essays subsection (the essays being relevant for a See Also section), and a category that's not in the Essay template; and edited "several" to "at least two" as more precise (I remember two but perhaps there were more and "several" isn't usually said for just two). The expansion of the The New Yorker citation is much appreciated, along with the explanation about letters in the magazine, which, about rarity etc., is true. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension paragraph

I added a paragraph about children's books meant for English teachers, where fact-checking is often lower or nonexistent because the primary focus is reading comprehension (my current job is copy editing children's nonfiction/textbooks). Let me know if there are objections. Honestly I could go on. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]