This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article 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.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The article is categorised as one with unsourced statements seemingly because of the citation needed flag on "one of the most prolific and popular". The length of the bibliography shows that he was prolific, unless his authorship of those works be held unsourced. So it seems popular is the fly in the ointment. The linked Wikipedia article W. Somerset Maugham is not flagged as needing a citation despite containing:
“...Maugham...was one of the most popular authors of his era, and reputedly the highest paid of his profession during the 1930s[1].”
The reference, to The Literature Network , has this:
“… Maugham … Well known British … writer… highest paid author of the 1930s … was popular among many readers,…” and uses the word ‘’popular’’ several times, without sources.
Is there a test for popularity? "Popular" occurs in many Wikipedia articles about petty singers.
Either both Wikipedia articles or neither should carry the flag.SilasW09:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the deal with the running commentary after the book titles, such as his "most chilling novel" or "worst novel"? Some of it seems appropriate, such as shortest novel, or first novel, but the rest seems out of place. Rnb (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of the running commentary is to put the works in the context of Maugham's life and oeuvre as well as to give some brief idea about their nature. Feel free to edit anything you wish. I agree that "most chilling" is out of place, and I will think of something more suitable. As for the "worst novel", it doesn't exist. There is "worst mature novel", and this is perfectly correct. Waldstein1981 (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've stripped out more of the commentary. Notes on subject matter, placement in publication timeline, etc., are fine. But no, comments like "worst mature novel" are not "perfectly correct" on Wikipedia. They may be in a survey of Maugham's work or a biography, but not in an encyclopedia entry. It's original research, and it's verboten. Similarly, "Contains no preface at all!" and "Maugham's shortest novel, or longest short story, if you like" are unencyclopedic in tone.PacificBoy08:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Should you decide to clean up, feel free to do so as thoroughly as you like. I only want to point out that my aim was to compile a really useful bibliography, including the great deal of detail. The Web is full of general and generic listings of Maugham's books. Waldstein1981 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
