This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
Something Beautiful for God is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
I would recommend adding much more information on this page. It comes off as biased, almost trying to disprove the book instead of informing the reader on what it is about. There is more information about the work of Christopher Hitchens than the book itself. I recommend expanding on the plot of the book. Instead of removing all the information about opposing viewpoints on the book, it would be wise to instead add a section under the title "Criticism". Also, some of the references do not relate to the wikipedia page/ do not provide any information regarding the book. The article "how I lost what mother gave me" made only a single mention of the book, and provided no significant information about it or its criticism. Not much of the information from any of the references are included into this page. --JacobAM (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Till that time, I'll reduce the negative review size to match NPOV. Lourdes 03:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arrivisto. In my opinion, providing a negative review of the book while not providing any other review of the book is non-NPOV. In my research, a predominantly large number of references to and reviews of the book are positive. Therefore, the negative slant that your inclusion is giving the article currently is not matching our NPOV policy. Please do give your opinion on how to correct this. Thanks. Lourdes 04:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lourdes, I have amended the final paragraph so that it makes sense. Also, I have added a middle paragraph, as a start to describing what the book is actually about. Of course it is most important to have NPOV, but the notable thing about Muggeridge's stuff on MT is that he was so captivated by her that he seemed to lose his usual critical faculties and he made a number of risible points. Cheers, Arrivisto (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
