Talk:The Monster of Florence: A True Story

Copyright violation(s)?

When the first paragraph of the plot was added here Amazon.com was listed as the source. In the next edit here, the reference to Amazon is removed, and the text is split into two paragraphs, the first of which is reworded; however, the second paragraph remains virtually unchanged and appears to be a copy/paste of the publisher's plot description based on this Google search . momoricks 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also

Since someone brought up the "Discuss" part, but there isn't any discussion started. Should have been something after the second revert, at least. The see also is a good concept, but it would really be better off to put something like that in the article. Introduce Mignini, explain his role in the MoF case and note that he's portrayed as incompetent in the book. It's about a book, so there is some implicit assumption that the book is the source for the plot description, otherwise that would absolutely need to be sourced. In the see also, add the MoMK link with a note that it's another case Mignini is involved in, nothing more. Ravensfire (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely.LedRush (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I haven't looked at them in detail, but possible sources for a review section

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Also, might be good to split the background section into background and plot, so readers can better identify which is which. Ravensfire (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken edit?

Another user undid the edit I had made, restoring material that contravenes WP:OVERLINK and WP:COATRACK. Is there any reason for this? It's hard to see any possible encyclopedic reason for the reversion, but I await with bated breath. --John (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As always, your snark is not helpful. Feel free to unlink, but your coatrack claim is dubious at best. We had opened the discussion on this above, so, if you have more thoughts on this, you can make any sarcastic or unhelpful and accusatory remarks up there.LedRush (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to reduce the "snark", you could reduce the incidence of unhelpful edits like the one I highlighted. Reverting an edit you only partly disagree with is not how we work here. Why is the coatrack claim dubious? --John (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Ian Spackman's original edit - the reference to Meredith Kercher does seem tangential at best, especially for a "See also" section. Links to Monster of Florence and Censorship in Italy seem to be much more pertinent given the focus of the subject matter. SuperMarioMan 19:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given the article a general clean-up. The West Seattle Herald link is of little direct relevance to the subject of this article, and I have removed it accordingly. SuperMarioMan 20:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The edits seem good. I think the connection to MoMK through Mignini should be made more explicit per Raven's suggestion above.LedRush (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)