 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
With all due respect to the person who took the time to read and summarize this book, I'm not sure this summary is the kind of article that should be on Wikipedia. It seems to go a little too in-depth into the book, almost like a book report. (I removed a lot of the unsourced information and non-NPOV stuff, so I think it's a little better now.) Rather than a summary, it might be better-suited toward bullet points of information, or other existing Wikipedia articles that the book addresses, without actually treating it like a book review. Comments? --Bill shannon (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Article could use
editThis article could use better formatting. Also I think some of it likely reads a little awkwardly for anyone not already familiar with the history discussed. Since ideally those unfamiliar are the target audience, it could use some tlc.
I edit mainly on my phone, and had a hell of a time getting what I did change to save accurately. So I won't put myself through what would come with reworking the formatting, but I may come back to rephrase and clarify some of it. Assuming I'm in the mood to deal with the frustrations that seem to come with doing this stuff on my phone. Sajiky (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)