Talk:All About Love: New Visions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Grammar and structural problems: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|1= |
|||
{{WPBooks|class=stub |needs-infobox=|auto=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Books|needs-infobox=}} |
|||
{{ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=low|literature=yes}} |
||
}} |
|||
== WikiProject class rating== |
== WikiProject class rating== |
||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
There is an over-reliance on primary sources in this article [[User:Tenuous tree|Tenuous tree]] ([[User talk:Tenuous tree|talk]]) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
There is an over-reliance on primary sources in this article [[User:Tenuous tree|Tenuous tree]] ([[User talk:Tenuous tree|talk]]) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I agree – I did search a bit, but could not find many secondary sources that talk about the book itself (rather than citing something from it). The [https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/01/30/reviews/000130.30harrist.html New York Times had a review in 2000] and Associated Press recently (March '24) published [https://apnews.com/article/bell-hooks-all-about-love-f6ab3b8b5411999bfa4ea6c5a54b9558 an article on the books lasting impact]. [[User:Simulo|Simulo]] ([[User talk:Simulo|talk]]) 09:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Grammar and structural problems == |
== Grammar and structural problems == |
||
Latest revision as of 09:12, 20 October 2024
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
WikiProject class rating
[edit]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
More secondary sources needed
[edit]There is an over-reliance on primary sources in this article Tenuous tree (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree – I did search a bit, but could not find many secondary sources that talk about the book itself (rather than citing something from it). The New York Times had a review in 2000 and Associated Press recently (March '24) published an article on the books lasting impact. Simulo (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Grammar and structural problems
[edit]The format and content doesn't fit the usual Wikipedia structure for books. There are also multiple grammar errors such as sentences beginning without capitalization. Overall, it wasn't up to most Wikipedia article standards. TonyRoni (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)