Talk:Robert Drewe

comments

I Believe that this article/stub should be deleted as the book isn't sufficiently famous/noteworthy to have it's own entry. I propose that the text be moved to an article (not yet in existence) on the Author Robert Drewe.

For instance, "The Latham Diaries" don't have their own entry, but the author Mark Latham does. Grumpyyoungman01 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Original research

"People have often questioned the creditability of this autobiography with reasons asking how Drewe can remember images so vividly from when he as young as 6."

Nobody has ever questioned the credibilty of the book, otherwise where is the proof, references etc.. that they have. I am removing this because I think it comes under original research. Grumpyyoungman01 00:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Confused Genres

Problem with his supposed autobiography, and his book about C Y O'Connor (The Drowner) is that they are blends of fiction and incorporating historical personages, as a consequence it is not valid to really question the history in such a novel. In a casual aside with him (Drewe) many years ago about his Tasmania/Sydney novel - it is clear that the mix of autobiog with history has been a pervasive theme in most of his work - this makes it problematic to ascertain the bits of history and the bits of fiction. Maybe. User:SatuSuro 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Content?

It doesn't seem relevant to list every school which is studying this text. It is leading to unnecesary edits which requires article maintenance. Information on how this book is being used in schools is not relevant to the article title "Robert Drewe". It would also be more appropriate to move 'The Shark Net' into a seperate article.

-- TheDarkestShadow (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Drewe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517120323/http://www.newcastlewritersfestival.org.au/robert-drewe-2013/ to http://www.newcastlewritersfestival.org.au/robert-drewe-2013/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://%5bhttp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Critical responses seems to be copy and paste

While it might be useful to have reviews all in one place, I don't believe it's normal WP procedure to allow copy and paste from the original sources? Surely all this should just be listed under references. ProfDEH (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)