Talk:English Electric Canberra (book)

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English Electric Canberra (book) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Books

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Military history: British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Tone

The tone of this is not appropriate at all; it sounds like it was written either by the author, a friend of the author, or someone working at the publishing house trying to sell the book to people. Way too gushy and full of praise, friendly-sounding, and it makes subjective judgements about the topic. Perhaps one of the reviews used the term "outstanding" describing the book (although I'd still leave it out unless it said "the book was called 'outstanding' by some reviewers), but how do you justify "an 'outstanding' tribute to a remarkable aircraft". That sounds like something taken off the cover of the book; Wikipedia does not judge whether an aircraft is "remarkable" or "a true classic" or anything like that; if someone else describes it as such, you can say that "some people consider the Canberra a 'remarkable' aircraft". I'm not going to go into detail about the rest of the things wrong here; it should be obvious..45Colt 21:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree it is a promotional article but previous attempts to delete or merge with the author didnt gain a consensus, that doesnt mean it cant be nominated again or pruned to remove the hyperbole, basically it is just another book on the Canberra and not particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]