Talk:The Man Who Loved Books Too Much

Article would be improved by removing analysis from synopsis

Currently, the synopsis includes some interpretive material that would be better placed in a different section. See WP:PLOTSUM for related tips. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Thanks for reviewing and for reminding me that I'd forgotten to add incoming links. Regarding this note, can you elaborate on what you consider "interpretive material"? While the synopsis does include analysis of the book's subjects, that analysis is the author's own and is included in the book (though I did cite secondary sources describing the book's contents). The link you provided to WP:PLOTSUM is primarily for works of fiction; for non-fiction I tend to go by WP:NONFICTION, and that page's section on synopses does say Although termed "non-fiction" a book may include a great deal of the author's opinions, for example about the character and motivations of the various persons involved, and that's what I aimed to include. However, I've only been editing in the non-fiction topic area for a few months so I'm open to differing opinions and criticisms. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

DrOrinScrivello, looking more closely, I apologise, this was a mis-reading on my part! I spotted the phrase “Bartlett argues…” and thought to myself “well that probably belongs somewhere else” but failed to notice that Bartlett was the author, and that the book itself would indeed be “arguing” about its subject. Re-reading more carefully when it’s not the middle of the night, I no longer have concerns. Thanks for your work on this article, and sorry again for my mis-reading here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all, I thought something like that may have occurred but wanted to make sure I hadn't erred somewhere. Thanks again, happy editing! DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)