This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Deleted the following line on the basis of WP:NOR:
It seems to me to be a novel interpretation of Abbey's work, it's too general, and it's not even about the book at hand. Lowerarchy 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The entire plot summary here is written like a student's book report, blending fact, opinion, and unsourced context. It repeatedly uses the second person voice, which is certainly not encyclopedic. Unfortunately, this is Abbey's least available work, and I don't know of an easy way to correct it. Simply deleting the summary looks like a clear downgrade; can anyone source a better summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.242 ( talk) 18:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Deleted the following line on the basis of WP:NOR:
It seems to me to be a novel interpretation of Abbey's work, it's too general, and it's not even about the book at hand. Lowerarchy 18:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The entire plot summary here is written like a student's book report, blending fact, opinion, and unsourced context. It repeatedly uses the second person voice, which is certainly not encyclopedic. Unfortunately, this is Abbey's least available work, and I don't know of an easy way to correct it. Simply deleting the summary looks like a clear downgrade; can anyone source a better summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.218.242 ( talk) 18:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)