This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the "analysis" (it is OR) and am now wondering if there is a reason to have a "Quotes" section...any thoughts? Levi P. 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
add the anaylsis and take out the quotes.
The article correctly states that O'Brien was nominated for a Pulitzer, but he won a National Book Award for Going After Cacciato. Might we want to list that instead? I've always considered them roughly equivalent in prestige among novelists.
This article seems awfully biased, almost like an advertorial by the book publisher. I'm not interested in what one reader thinks of the book. Phrases and words like creatively, masterfully, very interesting give the impression this is a book review not a encyclopedia article. It would not require a significant rewrite, just a few changes. Can we leave the 'glowing reviews' to amazon and keep wikipedia factual?
This theory seems, to say the least, to be somewhat unstable. I really can't take this theory any more seriously than the List of conspiracy theories.
I won't bother with the quotes but I thought I'd highlight this one:
"At one point during the night he stood waist deep in the lake" (p.51) (It was a shallow lake.)
Thanks, Monkeyblu e 13:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Gah, who re-added the "Dwarfism Theory" and why? Could someone please remove it? 124.168.27.181 ( talk) 06:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have removed the "analysis" (it is OR) and am now wondering if there is a reason to have a "Quotes" section...any thoughts? Levi P. 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
add the anaylsis and take out the quotes.
The article correctly states that O'Brien was nominated for a Pulitzer, but he won a National Book Award for Going After Cacciato. Might we want to list that instead? I've always considered them roughly equivalent in prestige among novelists.
This article seems awfully biased, almost like an advertorial by the book publisher. I'm not interested in what one reader thinks of the book. Phrases and words like creatively, masterfully, very interesting give the impression this is a book review not a encyclopedia article. It would not require a significant rewrite, just a few changes. Can we leave the 'glowing reviews' to amazon and keep wikipedia factual?
This theory seems, to say the least, to be somewhat unstable. I really can't take this theory any more seriously than the List of conspiracy theories.
I won't bother with the quotes but I thought I'd highlight this one:
"At one point during the night he stood waist deep in the lake" (p.51) (It was a shallow lake.)
Thanks, Monkeyblu e 13:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Gah, who re-added the "Dwarfism Theory" and why? Could someone please remove it? 124.168.27.181 ( talk) 06:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)