This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christopher Anvil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is totally POV. (IMHO Anvil's "excellent" prose clunks like a very clunky thing, but never mind that.) Lee M 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, here is part of Joanna Russ's review of Pandora's Planet (in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, February 1973) for another view of Anvil's excellent prose:
Honestly, I have never read anything Anvil wrote, so I can't say either way, but the review amused me and I came here for more information. Idontcareanymore ( talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christopher Anvil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Currently, this article is sourced pretty much exclusively to the various introductions and afterwards in the Baen books reprint collections of Anvil's works. Those are all by people who are acknowledged to be strong fans of Anvil's work, and most of them are not independent in that they were working to get Anvil republished, as part of their employment. I happen to agree with most of what they wrote, and own some of the reprint editions, but this is not a proper basis for a wikipedia article. Indeed it could be argued that as it stands at this moment the article doesn't even establish the notability of the subject. I do think Anvil is notable, but the article needs yto be improved to better establish this. It also needs better balance between supporters and those with other views. Citing the Russ review quoted above might be part of the fix for that. i am going to but some tags on the article until i can improve it (or others do so). DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Christopher Anvil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is totally POV. (IMHO Anvil's "excellent" prose clunks like a very clunky thing, but never mind that.) Lee M 01:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, here is part of Joanna Russ's review of Pandora's Planet (in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, February 1973) for another view of Anvil's excellent prose:
Honestly, I have never read anything Anvil wrote, so I can't say either way, but the review amused me and I came here for more information. Idontcareanymore ( talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christopher Anvil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Currently, this article is sourced pretty much exclusively to the various introductions and afterwards in the Baen books reprint collections of Anvil's works. Those are all by people who are acknowledged to be strong fans of Anvil's work, and most of them are not independent in that they were working to get Anvil republished, as part of their employment. I happen to agree with most of what they wrote, and own some of the reprint editions, but this is not a proper basis for a wikipedia article. Indeed it could be argued that as it stands at this moment the article doesn't even establish the notability of the subject. I do think Anvil is notable, but the article needs yto be improved to better establish this. It also needs better balance between supporters and those with other views. Citing the Russ review quoted above might be part of the fix for that. i am going to but some tags on the article until i can improve it (or others do so). DES (talk) DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)