WikiProject Novels was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on January 2010. |
Novels Project‑class | |||||||
|
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. Thanks! —PermStrump (talk)
The articles on the 13 Inspector Morse series novels by Colin Dexter need work. Only one includes reviews of the novels, and few have any inline citations at all. The first novel is Last Bus to Woodstock, from which you can access the following twelve. I put in a References section in each article, anticipating that there will be inline citations some day. Few have a Plot summary that covers the resolution as well as the crimes, fewer list the the characters. I read one of the novels, The Jewel That Was Ours, and I found two reviews of that novel online. My plot summary is too long by 400 words, so I need to shorten it someday. Two of his novels won the Gold Dagger award for Crime novels, and there is no plot summary for one of those novels nor any external reviews.
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Janissaries series to be moved to Janissaries (series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 01:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hiya! I've been discussing an article with a newer user (@ Samuel Adrian Antz) and would like a second opinion on original research and primary sourcing in articles about novels.
Notability of the books aside, are sections like Dichronauts#Background (mathematics and physics) and The Eternal Flame (novel)#Background (mathematics and physics) good to keep? Personally it feels like either synthesis or over reliance on primary sources, is there an exception in fictional works? Just i yaya 16:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The reception section of Acrobat (novel) mentions what review sites, all considered reliable sources, said about the book, and references those official sites linking to the actual reviews there. An editor has tagged these places with a "better sources needed" tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acrobat_%28novel%29&diff=1197539304&oldid=1197503587 Dream Focus 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposal to deprecate "country" in favor of "location" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα ( talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a book series I was quite fond of when I was younger and I'd like to improve the pages but I'm not sure about the best way to go about it. The first book is notable, while the rest are kind of scattershot - the fourth book, strangely, seems to fulfill NBOOK, while I'm not sure the rest do. I was able to find one review for each of them at least. They've been tagged for uncertain notability for over a decade. Should I merge all but the first into the series page (which has virtually no content)? Unsure how that works. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Inheritance Cycle#Requested move 23 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There's a problematic new editor called Themashup who is currently adding results from the "review aggregator" IDreamBooks to literary items. They don't seem sufficiently encyclopedic to me to warrant inclusion. Could this problem be taken to administrator level and a ruling made whether its use is legitimate by WP guidelines? Sweetpool50 ( talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
some relation to Sonyis a recommendation for its reliability. I immediately thought of the incident (from 2001) where Sony published fake movie reviews, resulting in an out-of-court settlement, and was accused of using employees posing as moviegoers in television commercials (see David Manning (fictitious writer)). The site appears to be defunct, but based on the iDreamBooks article, it aggregates views of professional critics "as well as from writers who were vetted by the website and allowed to submit reviews". "Revenue is generated from paid partnerships, of which the first one was the Sony Reader store partnership." I know Wikipedia is an unsuitable source for articles, but I hope it's useful in discussions like these. In my opinion, iDreamBooks should not be regarded as a reliable source. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
WikiProject Novels was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on January 2010. |
Novels Project‑class | |||||||
|
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books |
Index
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. Thanks! —PermStrump (talk)
The articles on the 13 Inspector Morse series novels by Colin Dexter need work. Only one includes reviews of the novels, and few have any inline citations at all. The first novel is Last Bus to Woodstock, from which you can access the following twelve. I put in a References section in each article, anticipating that there will be inline citations some day. Few have a Plot summary that covers the resolution as well as the crimes, fewer list the the characters. I read one of the novels, The Jewel That Was Ours, and I found two reviews of that novel online. My plot summary is too long by 400 words, so I need to shorten it someday. Two of his novels won the Gold Dagger award for Crime novels, and there is no plot summary for one of those novels nor any external reviews.
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Janissaries series to be moved to Janissaries (series). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. — RMCD bot 01:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hiya! I've been discussing an article with a newer user (@ Samuel Adrian Antz) and would like a second opinion on original research and primary sourcing in articles about novels.
Notability of the books aside, are sections like Dichronauts#Background (mathematics and physics) and The Eternal Flame (novel)#Background (mathematics and physics) good to keep? Personally it feels like either synthesis or over reliance on primary sources, is there an exception in fictional works? Just i yaya 16:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The reception section of Acrobat (novel) mentions what review sites, all considered reliable sources, said about the book, and references those official sites linking to the actual reviews there. An editor has tagged these places with a "better sources needed" tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acrobat_%28novel%29&diff=1197539304&oldid=1197503587 Dream Focus 03:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox book#Proposal to deprecate "country" in favor of "location" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Οἶδα ( talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There's a book series I was quite fond of when I was younger and I'd like to improve the pages but I'm not sure about the best way to go about it. The first book is notable, while the rest are kind of scattershot - the fourth book, strangely, seems to fulfill NBOOK, while I'm not sure the rest do. I was able to find one review for each of them at least. They've been tagged for uncertain notability for over a decade. Should I merge all but the first into the series page (which has virtually no content)? Unsure how that works. PARAKANYAA ( talk) 00:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:The Inheritance Cycle#Requested move 23 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 03:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
There's a problematic new editor called Themashup who is currently adding results from the "review aggregator" IDreamBooks to literary items. They don't seem sufficiently encyclopedic to me to warrant inclusion. Could this problem be taken to administrator level and a ruling made whether its use is legitimate by WP guidelines? Sweetpool50 ( talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
some relation to Sonyis a recommendation for its reliability. I immediately thought of the incident (from 2001) where Sony published fake movie reviews, resulting in an out-of-court settlement, and was accused of using employees posing as moviegoers in television commercials (see David Manning (fictitious writer)). The site appears to be defunct, but based on the iDreamBooks article, it aggregates views of professional critics "as well as from writers who were vetted by the website and allowed to submit reviews". "Revenue is generated from paid partnerships, of which the first one was the Sony Reader store partnership." I know Wikipedia is an unsuitable source for articles, but I hope it's useful in discussions like these. In my opinion, iDreamBooks should not be regarded as a reliable source. signed, Willondon ( talk) 21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)