Talk:Signature Books
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Signature Books 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 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
FARMS section: NPOV?? edit
I remember a wise administrator saying that the litmus test for NPOV is that, if after you read it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie, it's NPOV.
After reading the section on the FARMS controversy (and knowing nothing about the issues involved before having read the piece), I can most assuredly say that the author's sympathies lie with Signature Books, and against FARMS. Of nine items currently in quotes (including titles of articles!), all seem designed to make FARMS look foolish or belligerent.
I am therefore putting an NPOV tag on the section, and paring back the most blatant NPOV material from the section.
--Trevdna (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Alright, half an hour of my life gone, but I think that looks a whole lot better. I'm leaving the NPOV tag for now, until another, fresher set of eyes can come in and say they don't know where the article's sympathies lie. But I somehow doubt that - there still aren't any words of FARMS' up there, unless you count the quote that was cherry-picked earlier, which I expanded so it was readable.
- Anyhow, comments or questions are welcome.
- --Trevdna (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's been a while, so I looked over the section. I think it's fine now the way you have written it. The NPOV tag isn't needed anymore since the information supplied from FARMS is strictly to show there was a conflict and applies only to FARMS itself.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is overly promotional edit
The way that both the advisory board and the editorial board are described is full of needless puff words and unjustified promotionalism. I have tried to tone it down, but there still needs to be more work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)