From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

and maybe it should be again. Drmies ( talk) 04:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Original research, etc.

Recent edits added material that is not well verified and not encyclopedic in tone. The "background" does not directly pertain to the novel, and the section on style requires secondary sourcing: by definition that commentary constitutes original research. The plot summary is excessively long, of course, and a section like "Hot topics" is totally not neutral (and, again, consists of original research). Finally, recent additions were not carefully copy-edited. Drmies ( talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I second this. Ephun ( talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

and maybe it should be again. Drmies ( talk) 04:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Original research, etc.

Recent edits added material that is not well verified and not encyclopedic in tone. The "background" does not directly pertain to the novel, and the section on style requires secondary sourcing: by definition that commentary constitutes original research. The plot summary is excessively long, of course, and a section like "Hot topics" is totally not neutral (and, again, consists of original research). Finally, recent additions were not carefully copy-edited. Drmies ( talk) 22:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I second this. Ephun ( talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) reply


Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook