WikiProject iconNovels Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

It would be really helpful to get more opinions here. Thanks! PermStrump(talk)

Novels by Colin Dexter

edit

The articles on the 13 Inspector Morse series novels by Colin Dexter need work. Only one includes reviews of the novels, and few have any inline citations at all. The first novel is Last Bus to Woodstock, from which you can access the following twelve. I put in a References section in each article, anticipating that there will be inline citations some day. Few have a Plot summary that covers the resolution as well as the crimes, fewer list the the characters. I read one of the novels, The Jewel That Was Ours, and I found two reviews of that novel online. My plot summary is too long by 400 words, so I need to shorten it someday. Two of his novels won the Gold Dagger award for Crime novels, and there is no plot summary for one of those novels nor any external reviews.

I have read just the one book in the series, so I cannot do more than set up a more consistent pattern in the articles. I could hunt for reviews, which I suspect are out there, online perhaps. There is a book cited in each article that apparently collects reviews of the novels, but I do not have that book. The novels were adapted into a television series, and then two more television series, on following the main character's death (Inspector Lewis or Lewis), and the other exploring Morse's early days in the police force (Endeavour). The actor who player Morse, John Thaw, was a very good actor, drawing many viewers to the television series. I tried to separate the mentions of the adaptations from the sections on the novels. There is an article with a List of Inspector Morse episodes, and the plot summaries in those are mainly blurbs; even the longer ones never get to the denouement. Anyway, there are many opportunities for work on the articles about the novels or about the television series. I did expect that the novels would have more complete articles, given the interest in the series, so help is welcome! --Prairieplant (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

IDreamBooks

edit

There's a problematic new editor called Themashup who is currently adding results from the "review aggregator" IDreamBooks to literary items. They don't seem sufficiently encyclopedic to me to warrant inclusion. Could this problem be taken to administrator level and a ruling made whether its use is legitimate by WP guidelines? Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sweetpool50, if you tried to ping @Themashup, you didn't succeed, check your link. A couple of diffs you see as problematic could help people form an opinion. At a glance, iDreamBooks could be an acceptable WP:EL in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hey, this has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but could you, when sending messages, not use a strong and problematic attitude (personally I found your attitude of rude and talking down to me and felt it could've been expressed better but understand I overthink things). I like to keep things positive and all and if any problems come up I am trying to always talk civil and be positive though I am not perfect as we all aren't. It just bothered me a bit and I want to start to be a bit more open. Themashup (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't sure how to provide diffs. Here's 1 for Mansfield Park and another for Hamlet, since reverted by another editor as "not the best source" per WP:NPOV. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
For Hamlet that made sense since the site didn't provide score since didn't have enough reviews but thought it worked for contemporary views. Mansfield Park was given a score and with 11 critic reviews which reflects modern critic views of the work. I could've added more commentary explaining that looking back but it works well in showing modern (21st century) views of a work. I was trying to add a sentence saying a preface to it to show this is ref. to 21st century and more modern views after time but acc. put "contemporary" thinking it meant 21st century lol and tried to change it but got message from you to stop editing.
Almost forgot, iDreamBooks is also not just some site it had alot behind it (such as mul. media places discussing it) and some relation to Sony. It was intended it seems to be a RT of books for modern and sometimes classical books and it seems more newer reception of them after all these years.
In that sense, I don't see the issue with it at all and find it problematic to hide 21st century looks at works and to shelter it to one viewpoint at one time when, with Pride and Prejudice for instance, there is a whole section discussing 21st century reception yet nothing but lists is there and iDreamBooks would be, imo, a perfect place to show 21st century views as intended.
It would be like saying RT and Metacritic shouldn't be on any old film's wiki page in that sense. Though, you might be critical of how I forgot to preface it which is true but I could simply add a couple of sentences fixing that. If I should've asked everyone or something please tell me how and I will I get so confused by this site and it's rules sometimes. Themashup (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Noting that I wrote my post below without reading yours. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok. In those examples. there is no WP:RS problem (any source is an RS for its own words), the idea may be that this is similar to adding Rotten Tomatoes to a film-article, which is fairly common. Plus points for the well-made cites. Seems like good faith edits.
The question is rather, is it a good idea to add IDreamBooks per WP:NPOV (those who haven't read it, please do). I'm leaning no, based on that I've never heard of it and it seems to be inactive. In an article like Hamlet, mentioning IDreamBooks in-text seems to fail WP:PROPORTION IMO. It may be an ok WP:EL in some cases. Ping @Poirot09 if you wish to comment.
However @Sweetpool50, per WP:OWNTALK, you should not have made this edit [1]. @Themashup can remove comments from their talkpage if they want to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
The site shouldn't be included at all, imo. Some of the "critic reviews" seem to be from blogs (ex. [2]), so it doesn't even pass WP:EL criteria. Here, they say they have a "criteria", but they don't specify it so I'm a little bit skeptic (and anyway, we don't usually add "consumer ratings" to Wikipedia). Poirot09 (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Taking the Hamlet one [3] as example, it's a bit of a mixed bag, but stuff included like [4][5] is a fairly clear indication of "not good enough." So yeah, I'm at "don't include." There may still be an argument for WP:ELMAYBE#4 in some cases. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
To add another concern, I'm not sure some relation to Sony is a recommendation for its reliability. I immediately thought of the incident (from 2001) where Sony published fake movie reviews, resulting in an out-of-court settlement, and was accused of using employees posing as moviegoers in television commercials (see David Manning (fictitious writer)). The site appears to be defunct, but based on the iDreamBooks article, it aggregates views of professional critics "as well as from writers who were vetted by the website and allowed to submit reviews". "Revenue is generated from paid partnerships, of which the first one was the Sony Reader store partnership." I know Wikipedia is an unsuitable source for articles, but I hope it's useful in discussions like these. In my opinion, iDreamBooks should not be regarded as a reliable source. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think it offers meaningful encyclopedia value to cite a defunct review aggregator site for reviews of "classics". Contemporary reception is of course worth discussing but it is best supported by much more rigorous sources like this one. The iDreamBooks are neither restricted to just RS, nor comprehensive of all non-RS sources, and so the aggregate score is not very informative. I actually think it is more informative to include the average GoodReads rating, since at least people have a sense of what GoodReads is and it's a currently active site. All of the edits citing iDreamBooks strike me as entirely good-faith but not something I would personally advocate to include. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
(For books published during the site's operational years, I suspect it is a more comprehensive resource and so more likely to be informative, though I don't think it rises to the RottenTomatoes level of informative.) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree and share your concerns. Albeit harmless, there's very little encyclopedic value to these additions. For example, how does this edit to David Copperfield make the article more informative to Dickens readers? As you alluded to, it is not reasonable to say readers have any sense of what iDreamBooks is (or was, to be exact). And even if they do, are readers consulting a Victorian literature article really interested in the opinions of Teen Ink, Gather Books, Brothers Judd, http://www.bookdrum.com, http://www.reviewstream.com, http://roofbeamreader.com, So Many Books, and For What It's Worth?
In general, I find aggregates to be far less interesting for books than for film or television. Prose is far more valuable. Ratings and scores are not even a fixture of literary criticism, and for a good reason in my opinion. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

J.K.Rowling

edit

I have nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.9% of all FPs. 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the article can be a Featured Article. It is a BLP, and seems to me to be balanced, and it is very interesting, as well as thorough. I did read some of the dialogue on the talk page, and has perhaps created a good article on a living person. I cannot figure where else to put this comment, Adam Cuerden, so here it is. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

A new series of Australian crime novels by PJ barker.Murder out west

edit

inspector axel Rasmussen tracks down killers in western Australian outback and brings them to justice. 103.189.63.92 (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply