This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A fact from The Best American Magazine Writing 2007 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 February 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The article describes, in the lead, what the topic of each of the selected magazine articles is. Except one. Was there a reason the Reitman article was described in more generic terms than the others? What was it that Reitman investigated? ++Lar: t/c21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Reitman investigated Scientology, in an article for Rolling Stone called "Inside Scientology". Some of the reviews mentioned this, some did not mention it. All of the book reviews that did mention this, gave that particular article very positive assessment and feedback. I chose to not add that into this article, as only some of the reviews mentioned it, and I wanted to stray away from "undue weight" on that subject matter, in this article. Other editors may feel otherwise, and they are free to add that to this article - along with the reviews of it. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Was that connection how this topic came to your attention? Because it seems odd to omit the mention of the topic of the article if it was lauded... did all the other articles reviewed have their topic mentioned by all the reviewers, prompting you to include the topic? Or was that an editorial decision on your part? ++Lar: t/c21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I already said why, above. I am sure if I had mentioned it, there would be those that would wish to cry "undue weight!", "undue weight!". It was one chapter out of the book, only mentioned by a couple reviews, so I chose to not include it. I have no objections if you or any other editor wishes to add it and reception of it to this article. -- Cirt (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Sadads (talk·contribs), of course, if such edits are backed up to secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Most or all you may find already cited in the article. Though it is possible there are other secondary sources I did not yet come across, in the course of my research. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
