|WikiProject Libraries||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
I have deleted the following statements as unjustified:
"Unlike in the reference book, accuracy is not of crucial importance. An inaccurate number or word here and there is not crucial as long as the message gets through."
Not so: a figure or statement given in an introductory text is more likely to be misleading, because the reader will have no basis for comparison.
"A new textbook might be good based on its own evident merits; however, if it is not as good as existing texts, it is useless."
Similarity among reviews
A book I read recently mentioned how reviews of a publication tend to not be independent and instead have clustered opinions, as if the reviewers were picking up each others ideas and restating them. This could probably use some mention in the article. --AB (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
To put it bluntly, this goes beyond the point of typographical errors and is simply not English. From just the "General" section:
"The determination of the book review is to communicate to the reader's mind the ideas and sensations the book reviewer experienced while researching the content, in this way explaining the reader what exact meaning the author presumed to transmit, or what did the reviewer experienced while during the reading."
"Making book review implies some special skills, as well as obliges with some precise responsibilities."
"While some aspects are less meaningful, others are have to be marked out as prerogative issues. The task is even more complicated as the writer could unintentionally imply the idea the reviewer of the book can notice."
"Then, the book reviewer has to decide upon authors points validity."
"The book review is also the expertise of the contents authenticity. By comparing the reviewed book to other materials in the given category the reviewer work implies potential danger for those writers, who admit plagiarism."
This article also seems like what you might call "original research" in that much of it is opinion and/or has no citations at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Book reviews are different from book reports
I don't think this topic Book Review should be merged with Book Report. They're different. A book review is generally much shorter than a book report, and book reviews should be more critical than book reports.
In my school, a book review should be done by someone in authority, say, an expert in the field while a book report is an academic exercise given to students.
When I ask my students to do a book report, they are instructed to give the title, author, publisher, publication date, etc., etc., and discuss or describe the contents of the book in several pages; whereas when I do a book review, I don't go over one page and I only focus on critiquing the contents of the book.
Don't merge. A book review is generally a piece written for a magazine, newspaper or other similar publication to help readers determine whether or not they should read the book in question. A book report is a kind of academic project typically assigned to grade schoolers and are generally written to prove that the student has read and comprehended the book to the teacher's satisfaction. One is a published criticism, the other is is an academic endeavor. -18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed a long, unsourced, POV essay on book reviews in this edit. A small amount of it looked like it could be sourced, but most of it was Original research, with big dollops of opinion. The only source in it was a link to a funny piece about book reviews on YouTube. Anyone who cares to source what was removed is welcome to restore what they can of it. Lone boatman (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Book review. 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/20101018152716/http://www.library.dal.ca:80/How/Guides/BookReview to http://www.library.dal.ca/How/Guides/BookReview/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819143145/http://www.lavc.edu:80/Library/bookreview.htm to http://www.lavc.edu/library/bookreview.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.