Talk:Market Wizards

Expansion request

This article is starting to lean a bit much towards an "advertisement" piece. It would probably benefit from some more third-party information about it. Can we please link to some reviews, give sales figures, include criticism, and other "non-promotional" elements? --Elonka 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is a rather odd format for an article on a book. This is certainly a notable and oft-quoted book, but I have never seen an outline format before. It seems unencyclopedia. I cut back on it and summarized.--Mantanmoreland 23:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Much better, thank you.  :) Would you also be willing to look at the article on Ed Seykota? I'd like another opinion there as well. --Elonka 00:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I shall. --Mantanmoreland 03:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Research sources

Some articles that mention the book

• Chicago Tribune `Market Wizards' paints incomplete portrait of traders' world

Reviewed by Bill Barnhart, Tribune deputy financial editor; Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext); Apr 15, 1990; pg. 3;

A Wonderful Book, I Sincerely Believe, but I Wonder Whether We Regard It As "Notable" per WP:BK

Today I've read the first two of Jack Schwager's Wizards works.

I hold them both in high regard.

Yet neither of the two appears to have attracted

substantial critical coverage by secondary sources

beyond many deservedly enthusiastic reviews.

.

Am I wrong in my interpretation of "notability" criteria at Wikipedia

when I imagine that a book really ought to have had substantial impact,

as indicated, at the very least, by extensive, thoughtful critical evaluation,

as a condition for encyclopedic entry?

.

~ ~ Wordsmith (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market Wizards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317093117/http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2003/11/01/279697?extID=10037&oliID=229 to http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2003/11/01/279697?extID=10037&oliID=229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)