Talk:Midwest Book Review

Not factual

It seems that this page must have been created, and is "maintained" (censored) by Midwest Book Review itself. In fact, they even discuss their edits on their own website -- such as the fact that they took out my edit which simply stated that all "reviews" (actually just blurbs) they publish are promotional, which is indisputably true. (Just for that, I'm not going to correct the grammatical mistake in the sentence about "promoting literacy.")

The statement that MBR accepts no financial reward for their unfailingly glowing "reviews" is only their say-so. A self-serving assertion has no place in an encyclopedia article.

MBR has over 35,000 "reviews" on Amazon, and every one gives five stars. They claim that this is just their way of dealing with Amazon's "unfair" rating system and that books have to meet some quality bar in order to be "reviewed", but the fact remains that MBR's "reviews" are badly skewing the ratings on Amazon. Skookumpete (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently Fails WP:ORG

Listings of this book as a resource for self-publishing in how to books about self-publishing does not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. As far as I can tell this entry fails WP:ORG unless reliable sources giving significant coverage can be found. There are also serious questions about the groups credibility regarding the independent nature of its reviews. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Midwest_Book_Review for more discussion on that topic.PelleSmith (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PelleSmith (talk · contribs) fails to WP:AGF, fails to notice that the article is a work in progress at the moment, and fails to notice that I have yet to finish working on this article. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm commenting on its current state. I wrote: unless reliable sources giving significant coverage can be found. I'm not sure what this has to do with assuming good faith in the least. Did I say something about editing? No I didn't. I didn't AfD this entry either so relax and keep working on it.PelleSmith (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you commented negatively on its current states, during the process when it was tagged with a tag that says Work in Progress. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed out what I believe to be a fact about entry content. Hardly a failure to WP:AGF.PelleSmith (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It would have been more polite to be patient. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

I have some issues with how some sources are being used in this entry. Do any of these newspaper articles being used here have more than incidental coverage of the Review, and how appropriate is it to use such incidental mention to source uncontested claims about the organization? It appears to me as an attempt to trump up notability by association (with reliable sources). Here's an example of what I mean in the second sentence of the lead:

• The Editor-in-Chief of the organization is James A. Cox.

Neither of these articles have anything to do with Cox or the Review. Within them Cox is quoted and his credentials are given as the editor in chief a fact that can be established by any number of other sources already used in the entry. These articles, with the barest of incidental mention, add no further content to the entry whatsoever. I find their inclusion dubious at best. If they remain it should be noted that WP:ORG specifically precludes such instances of mention from adding to the notability of a subject matter.PelleSmith (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I phased out primary sources in favor of secondary sources. Both the Associated Press and The Dallas Morning News eminently meet WP:RS standards for secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

As if that was ever under discussion. My point is in fact that because they do you are using them for their credibility and notability -- in other words associating the subject matter of the entry with these reliable sources by using them to source completely undisputed and basic facts that appear incidentally in their articles, which are themselves about things unrelated to this entry's subject.PelleSmith (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope, incorrect assumptions. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you'd be amenable to use sources with more than incidental mention to do this? Or you'd be happy to agree that these sources have only incidental mention and in no way add weight to notability per WP:ORG?PelleSmith (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I don't see any reason why to exclude any particular source simply because of the degree of mention. 2) I don't see why such a discussion is necessary here. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps asking a third opinion from user:Drmies or user:DGG on the issue would be useful? At a glance it looks fairly notable to me. P.S., are you concerned that the content is advertorial or that the article is being used for promotion? I haven't looked into the sourcing in depth. If you're both amenable getting one or more independent opinions on the notability issue might be worthwhile. The other way to go would be to take the article to AfD and see what comes of it. But I would expect it to survive based on my cursory evaluation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point I think it would survive an AfD as well, but I remain skeptical of this approach of source stacking entries. The fact is that little actual significant coverage exists of this organization in reliable sources.PelleSmith (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)