This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's ridiculous to say this article cites no sources, because it is a summary of a book, ergo, the book is the source for all the assertions. The real question is: is a book summary a legitimate entry? I would say no. The article should be focussed on the plot against the emperor, and then rewritten using not just Spence, but other sources as well. If the summary writer doesn't feel like undertaking the work, then delete the entry.
Theonemacduff ( talk) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Treason by the Book. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's ridiculous to say this article cites no sources, because it is a summary of a book, ergo, the book is the source for all the assertions. The real question is: is a book summary a legitimate entry? I would say no. The article should be focussed on the plot against the emperor, and then rewritten using not just Spence, but other sources as well. If the summary writer doesn't feel like undertaking the work, then delete the entry.
Theonemacduff ( talk) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Treason by the Book. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)