This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I'm contesting the PROD because I did manage to find several reviews for the book. Granted the trade-type reviews are rather light, but at this point in time the reviews are still considered to be enough to help the book pass WP:NBOOK. I have to admit that my opinion of trade reviews over the years has changed, but there has been no official consensus yet as to whether or not they should be considered trivial coverage. Because of this, as well as it being listed as a recommended read by Locus Online and the Orlando Sentinel review, I'm going to remove the PROD rationale. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
I'm contesting the PROD because I did manage to find several reviews for the book. Granted the trade-type reviews are rather light, but at this point in time the reviews are still considered to be enough to help the book pass WP:NBOOK. I have to admit that my opinion of trade reviews over the years has changed, but there has been no official consensus yet as to whether or not they should be considered trivial coverage. Because of this, as well as it being listed as a recommended read by Locus Online and the Orlando Sentinel review, I'm going to remove the PROD rationale. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)