Talk:David Shields
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
so I'm searching for how to make this page more official... but I'm not sure what my next step is. I've compared it to other writer pages that seem to have the same number of sources, but they don't have a little notice at the top that says some of their information needs to be verified...
Indenting.... I'm searching for a way to indent the the second line of an entry, but I haven't yet discovered how. Help?
Where's the writing? edit
Someone needs to actually write this page rather than throwing together a list of quotes and an overly extensive bibliography.
- Agreed. Is this wikipedia or is it just a PR tool? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.195.69 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed as well. This looks like PR garbage thrown together by a Knopf intern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.185.79 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Repetition and Criticism edit
Shields's bibliography is repeated throughout the entry. Could all be consolidated to the bibliography at the end. A large part of the "Life and Work" section is just a time-lined version of the bibliography. No need to have bibliography in the lede.
The "Critical Reception" has some elements that might be eliminated or moved to the pages about the books Reality Hunger or Salinger. Much of this section just seems like buzz and not yet effective in creating an encyclopedic survey of David Shields's work. Some of these quotes could possibly be formed into a more explicit description of Shields's work.