Talk:The Accidental

Confidence trick

Why the "See also" link to confidence trick. Is in fact the book about a con? Meanwhile, what about a section on "themes"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Style

All the reviews seem to regard the book's style as distinctive. What about a section dedicated to this? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold

I will have to hold this article for now. The article has a couple of grammar mistakes and is mildly confusing. Example from article: 'Michael believes her to be a wife of his wife', makes no sense and leaves the reader of the article confused. Please expand the article so that it's not so confusing in under 7 days or it will fail. I you do not think the article will be ready in seven days, please tell me, the article will be failed and you will have time to expand the article. Thanks!(Also I dont see the copyright information for the book cover, that too is needed) King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 05:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

I spent a lot of time working on this article, only to find that every single one of my contributions have been summarily reverted.

The article has multiple issues, which I tried to fix in my changes. There are problems with sources and verifiability. Above all, however, with the prose. While, as always, I don't expect all my proposed solutions to these problems to be accepted, I do bristle at the notion that my interventions have been treated as vandalism, and simply reverted without any attempt at discussion on the talk page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And now the tag I put on the article to signal these issues has been removed, again without discussion, and also without any of the issues addressed. I have therefore put it back. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I undid them, yes, as several of them were replacing reliable references with the {{fact}} template, and other MoS violations. Fixing problems now. Qst (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The problems are far from fixed. This has been a msssive downhill slide, and you haven't bothered to explain half your reverts. Just to take a couple of obvious errors: why put "fiction novel" in the opening line? Why keep to the ungrammatical line "The novel was subject to mostly positive from critics, with few negtive comments"? Where's the reliable source for the author's chronic fatigue syndrome? What is "a wife of his wife"? I had done a lot to help this article, almost all of which was mindlessly reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fail

I have looked over what the previous section talked of any why the editor added the tag, and I have seen that there are way to many problems to be fixed in under at least 3-7 days. First, the article is very confusing leaving much un said. Please elaborate on the article and tell more of the stroyline/plot. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 02:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's an unjustified move. I was in the process of fixing the problems; if you had given me time, I would have had everything done by today. Just because some editor wants to see more, doesn't mean to say there actually will be more added, as there is no other current information. I'd appreciate it if when I re-nom this, you do not review it. Qst (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well then if thats the case do this, get everything straight and then renominate. I wont EVER evaluate the article again if you dont appreciate me giving you more time to not worry about a deadline. King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 03:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this was rather fast. But Qst, I'd say you should take it to WP:GAR rather than renominating. NB that I do think there are a whole bunch of things that need to be fixed on the article. But it has an active editor, and it's nothing that can't be achieved in a week. (Though reverting good faith copy-editing and work with sources doesn't help!!) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)