Talk:The Litigators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chicago (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Novels (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern.
Good article The Litigators has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Predicting the Future?[edit]

The book was released the day after Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs entitled Steve Jobs was released by Simon & Schuster. Jobs had died earlier that month and the release date was moved forward. !--Relevant because it impacts the marketability of the book. I.E., it will probably never be a #1 best seller as a hardcover.--

This information isn't relevant unless and until the novel is actually proven incapable of reaching #1 Bestseller status due to being edged out by Steve Jobs. When that happens, a paragraph explaining the effect of the Jobs biography might be relevant - until it does, this paragraph is irrelevant to the article. 69.174.87.20 (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

(Fixed section formatting)Agree. I don't see the relevance of mentioning another book's publication at all. Shirtwaist 21:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Just removed mention of publication of "Steve Jobs", which has no relevance to this article. That is, none that has been brought out by a RS. Shirtwaist 21:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully, TonyTheTiger will discuss this here. Shirtwaist 04:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an author who has had repeated number-one best sellers. I expect that next week we will see this atop the NYT fiction best seller list. However, it will not be atop the Amazon.com or iTunes lists. The reason is because since they do not separate fiction and non-fiction, the Jobs book overshadows them. In the next few weeks it will be appropriate to comment on its selling rankings and a footnote should be made to the Jobs book. The comment that has now been twice removed will be appropriate in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the ranking of the book on the NYT list is relevant and of interest to some readers, and can easily be sourced. However, the only way mentioning why it didn't reach a certain point on certain lists because of another book's popularity, or "how it effects the marketability" of this book, or whatever should only be included if it is put in proper context by relevant information from reliable sources that talk about marketability, the placement of Grisham's previous books on such lists, what effect if any the Jobs book had, etc. The sentences "The book was released the day after Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs entitled Steve Jobs was released by Simon & Schuster. Jobs had died earlier that month and the release date was moved forward." tells the reader nothing about why this information is worth noting. I agree with IP that it would need something from a RS explaining the significance of the Jobs book in relation to the release of this book, which would be great. But the !note wouldn't seem to satisfy WP:V because it cites no sources and it's mostly the opinion of the note writer. You may be right about the Jobs book "overshadowing" Grisham on Amazon and itunes, but you need to establish notability and verifiability with RS rather than OR or opinion to state something like that in the article. Shirtwaist 00:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess if we can source that the Jobs book was #1 on Amazon and iTunes, it would make the statement relevant. I know I will be able to source NYT if it is #1. It will be a matter of sourcing that it was or was not #1 on other notable lists like iTunes, Amazon or maybe national newspapers like Wall Street Journal and USA Today. I am not sure how to source, how many of his past books have been #1 best sellers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Litigators/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ebe123 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

  • The last sentence of the first paragraph should have a reference.
  • The entire 2nd paragraph needs references.

Background[edit]

None found.

Publication[edit]

None found.

Plot summary[edit]

List of characters[edit]

None found.

Critical review[edit]

None found.

Commercial success[edit]

None found.

Comments[edit]

  • On hold now (7 days).
  • No dead links
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.