Talk:Purity (novel)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Purity (novel) 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

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal 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, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This should be moved back to Purity (novel)[edit]

The stated reason given for the move was there is, somewhere out there in the universe, another novel with the title Purity. We do not dab for hypothetical pages, we dab for actual pages only. As it is, the other supposedly Purity-titled novel is actually Pureza (1937) by José Lins do Rego. It has been translated into English (1948). With the same title Pureza. (Why, I don't know, it's not, for example, a character's name.) So this move was utterly pointless, and I am proceeding to have it moved back. Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was addressing the dabbing allegedly needed per the Edit Summary in the earlier move. For the record, there are a handful of other novels, and at least one novella, titled Purity, but no WP page on any of them, and they all look like longshots in the notability department. Similar things could be said about The Tunnel (novel) or The Room (novel). Choor monster (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dust jacket spine[edit]

The dust jacket's spine has an embossed circuit board design. I have no idea if reviewers are making anything of it. Choor monster (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old refs in "Plot" deleted[edit]

In adding the Plot summary section, I deleted the dust-jacket summary completely and the associated references. The references might be of separate interest. Choor monster (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I am distressed by this section. There is a citation of only one positive review and then follows with three negative reviews, one of which (from Gawker) is genuinely idiotic. There are negative reviews out there that are thoughtful and intelligent. Please consider using those rather than three of not very good quality.70.187.95.110 (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]