Talk:The Most Famous Man in America

Citation needed tags

I've removed some citation needed tags from the synopsis section, as I believe Wikipedia standard practice is to not cite the contents of a book or film--only direct quotations or opinions about the text. Examples of this can be see at the featured articles Uncle Tom's Cabin or Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. If I'm wrong about this, however, please correct me and let me know the relevant policy so I can avoid the mistake in the future! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Most Famous Man in America/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 15:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi K. I will be completing the review. The article is in pretty good shape, but there's work needed in a few areas:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   • a contradiction of his father's stern Calvinism: Would this read better as "in contrast to"? Or does this change the meaning?

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

1. • The Contents section has four quotations from Applegate at the bottom of the section; I think at least two of these should be eliminated and incorporated into the prose.

•  Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

1. B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   Sources are provided for all content; all are high quality periodicals. No copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing were found.

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   Citation templates are effectively used and no technical errors were found in the formatting of the citations. Citation Bot, Reflinks, and Checklinks found no issues.

   C. No original research:

   * Opinions expressed are those of the quoted sources.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   We need some information on the publication history please. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Books for ideas on what material could be included here. At a minimum, list the initial publication and any other editions using info available at WorldCat.

   Added that it came out in paperback, hardback, and ebook and that Three Leaves Press was also publishing it; I'm not sure if this is an imprint of Doubleday or what, so I've left it vague in the wording. Let me know if this works okay. I've left off the PawPrints edition, which seems to be just library binding of regular copies. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   • Three images are provided, and they all check out okay from a licensing point of view.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article will be placed on hold for one week to address these items. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and suggestions. I'll work on addressing them now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I think I've addressed your concerns above, but just let me know if you feel further work is required. Thanks again for taking the time to review this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry for the delay. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The book was generally well received by critics.

Ok, this sentence reads poorly. If it was generally well received by critics, then shouldn't it be cited? "Generally"? What does that mean? 73.6.249.87 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)