Talk:Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point

Untitled

Some reviews that IMHO would satisfy WP:RS:

• https://www.nature.com/articles/383228a0
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/688147 maybe?
• Lebowitz, Joel. "Time's arrow and Archimedes' point, by Huw Price." Physics Today 50, no. 1 (1997): 68-69.
• Reviews in Times Literary Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement, New Scientist, any other prominent mainstream media

Also, article title should be just "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point" per WP:CONCISE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Also also, per WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources", so any summary of the book should preferably be brief, or based on the secondary sources (such as book reviews), or both. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Old Comments

These were some old comments on the header of the draft that I have moved here for posterity:

• Comment: This brochure on editing and creating book articles may be helpful as far as the typical sections and so on that are in book articles.
  Also, the reason I'm not moving this at the moment is because it's easier to work on an article when it's in draft format. That way if you need to step away, you can leave something unfinished without worry of it being removed as incomplete. That's admittedly more of a personal preference, but I know it's a common one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This needs the following to spiffy the article up:
  * Rather than going chapter by chapter the synopsis should give a general overview. Chapter by chapter synopses are too long and are a bit overkill.
  * The reception section needs to be more cohesive. Rather than a list of the outlets that have reviewed the work, it's better to have it written more along the lines of "common criticisms are... common elements of praise are...". Reviews can establish notability but it's more helpful information-wise to summarize the commonly cited review elements akin to what you'd see at say, To_Kill_a_Mockingbird#Reception or Silent_Spring#Promotion_and_reception.
  * This needs a section that covers the book's release(s), such as when it initially released, any subsequent reprints or editions, and so on.
  I think that the book is notable, but this just needs to be cleaned to better meet the style guidelines for book articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Why I published the article

Thanks to ReaderofthePack for their comments. I believe I have addressed the concerns raised:

• 1) I have added a 'Release' section
• 2) I have added a sentence common elements to reviews in the 'Reception' section
• 3) I have not changed the chapter-by-chapter nature of the summary. If someone wants a general overview, they can read the header paragraph, which provides just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredsph (talk • contribs) 10:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)