Talk:Nothing Like It in the World
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nothing Like It in the World article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
External link to Central Pacific Railroad Museum edit
The article should include an external link to the following site, which responds to many passages in the book that its authors deems inaccurate or misleading. http://cprr.org/Museum/Books/Comments-Ambrose.html. (This is my first edit, and I don't know how to add the link myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.56.154 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The link you've provided, has been added, i've checked it before placing it on the article just in case, and it seems fine to place on the external links. →Yun-Yuuzhan→ 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
What's "the CP"? edit
That's "Central Pacific Railroad", right? (For people, especially non-North Americans, who come here without prior knowledge on the matter that's NOT clear. It could also be "Canadian Pacific Railway" or any number of things.) If so, shouldn't it be "CPRR"? I then would suggest replacing "the CP" with "the CPRR", the first instance in this hyperlinked form: "the CPRR". Someone who's positive that my assumptions are correct, please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ὁ οἶστρος (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming this is where I would write this response - I am still new to the editing of Wikipedia - you are indeed correct, the original author is referring to the 'Central Pacific Railroad'. I will change this immediately. I am actually going to re-read this book now and I will re-write the article when I am finished.
_charles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.64.209 (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Article completely rewritten edit
I have completely rewritten this article removing the unsourced, highly POV anonymous "review" that formerly appeared here and replaced that with a well sourced discussion of the many inaccuracies, misquotes, and false conclusions which have been well documented as appearing in the book. Centpacrr (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have changed article to "unassessed" as it has been completely rewritten. Centpacrr (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article now explains why the book sucks. And does a great job of it. But it does nothing to explain what the book actually says. 50.203.193.139 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well said. It really needs to lay out a complete picture of the book; warts and all. Risk Engineer (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- The article now explains why the book sucks. And does a great job of it. But it does nothing to explain what the book actually says. 50.203.193.139 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)