Talk:Profiles in Folly

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations

How exactly did I not cite this? Is it the wrong format? I took the ISBN from the book itself, and plugged it into EasyBib.

Thanks!

Sanitas (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self references are not reliable sources. To show notability you need "significant coverage" in reliable sources. As it stands at the moment, the notability of this book, at least as defined by Wikipedia standards, is doubtful. – ukexpat (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check for other sources. Please do not delete this article just yet. Thanks!Sanitas (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, I really don't understand why this needs to be more than just self referenced... The article written is merely a summary. Do we need a credible source to back up that the summary is correct (other than from the book itself)? If so, does a book review count?

Thanks!

Sanitas (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read our policy on verifiability: "If no reliable third party source has discussed the topic in a substantive manner, we should not have an article about it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this but do not quite understand the pretenses in which one can cite. I have found this website:[1] Though it might not be third party as Barnes & Noble has to do with book itself (Sterling Publishing is owned by Barnes and Noble). Under the tab, "editorial reviews" it gives three:

1) The overview from the book itself

2) A copyrighted review from 'Publishers Weekly'

3) A review from 'Lisa A. Ennis - Library Journal'

Are number 2 or 3 viable? If needed I found the links of Publishers Weekly and Library Journal to the actual reviews that are on the first website.

Thank you for your patience! Sanitas (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Self promotion" from the book itself is generally not a valid source, although snipits from the actual content of the book may be OK. (although you run the risk of getting into original research.)

Quoting - directly (short quote) or accurately summarizing a review in Publishers weekly is generally going to be valid sourcing. (put the link to the source next to the material it supports within the article WP:CITE)

It is likely, but less clear to me, that the reviews in Library Journal are professional reviews that are vetted by an editorial team - if so this would also be a valid source. (However, reviews in the blog section certainly wouldnt count.)

Does that help clear up?

Here is an example of what you might aim for as a great book article: Night (book). YOu can use this for ideas on how this article might develop.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing this up for me! I have added both sources and will look into citing a quote. I will also search for more website so that I may add more information which is backed up by viable sources.

Sanitas (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Profiles in Folly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207211801/http://www.publishersweekly.com:80/article/CA6575454.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6575454.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]