| Revision as of 17:33, 6 February 2014 editElfelix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,468 edits →Note about the Amazon review section.← Previous edit |
Revision as of 17:48, 6 February 2014 edit undoElfelix (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,468 edits →CommentsNext edit → |
| Line 21: |
Line 21: |
|
{{xt|In the late 1920s under Chiang Kai-shek the republic became a national power, but unity of command eluded its government; it remained a shifting coalition of warlords. In 1917 the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia. The Soviet government inherited the expansionist policies of the Czars, yet duplicitously managed to project a benign international image sustained by the allure of its then novel party ideology.}}<br> |
|
{{xt|In the late 1920s under Chiang Kai-shek the republic became a national power, but unity of command eluded its government; it remained a shifting coalition of warlords. In 1917 the Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia. The Soviet government inherited the expansionist policies of the Czars, yet duplicitously managed to project a benign international image sustained by the allure of its then novel party ideology.}}<br> |
|
then I predict it's all going to get removed, because this isn't a quote about the book, it's an argument that the book is making, presented as if it's true. I have nothing against you or this book or this author, but you're adding content here that is not written in an appropriate way for an article about a book. You have to describe the book as third party sources describe it, with links to third party sources. Amazon.com reviews are not going to be seen as independent sources. Simply, we're supposed to describe how other people think of the book, and not just repeat what's in the book. And if you don't talk about it, people are probably just going to remove your work.] 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
then I predict it's all going to get removed, because this isn't a quote about the book, it's an argument that the book is making, presented as if it's true. I have nothing against you or this book or this author, but you're adding content here that is not written in an appropriate way for an article about a book. You have to describe the book as third party sources describe it, with links to third party sources. Amazon.com reviews are not going to be seen as independent sources. Simply, we're supposed to describe how other people think of the book, and not just repeat what's in the book. And if you don't talk about it, people are probably just going to remove your work.] 06:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The content section is not advertised as "critical" or "annotated" and is sourced only to Prof. Paine. As such, a careful reader will quickly realize that it seeks to present merely a neutral, summary description of the author's work and points of view as published by Cambridge University Press. Yet for those readers who are not sophisticated, adding a qualifying "according to the author" now and again, doesn't hurt. ] (]) 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Note about the Amazon review section. == |
|
== Note about the Amazon review section. == |
Right now the assessment is only sourced to Amazon reviews. This material needs to be removed and assessments sourced from somewhere more reliable.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The quotations on the back of the dust jacket obviously were approved by editors at Cambridge University Press. Reliable, and arguably neutral (given Cambridge's own vetting standards). The professorial quotes describe the book's foreign-language sources, and its novel coverage... hence their value. Elfelix (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: invalid parameter
Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
Structure: criterion met