Talk:The Hockey Stick Illusion

Tidy up

I've done an intial tidy up. Does anyone have a hard copy of the book? One will no doubt be needed to expand the synopsis and add a few refs. Also, there don't seem to be many crit refs, so those need to be found to give the crit section some balance. This definitely has potential though. Jprw (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book, refs are in it can be seen on amazon on the back flap of the book. Try as i did i could find no crit`s of the book at all, Cla looked in infotrac and found none either mark nutley (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the first few pages of Google and also drew a blank. Where's George Monbiot when you need him? Nowtin The Guardian Jprw (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references need to be formatted better, with author, publication, publisher, and date published, if available. If its from the web, the retrieval date needs to be noted. Cla68 (talk) 07:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref`s have publisher, date retrieved, and publisher. I dunno how to have the author and publication show as well? mark nutley (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use the citation templates. They will put the information into a standardized format. Cla68 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the one for Matt Ridley -- that can serve as a template. Jprw (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There`s a template? mark nutley (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick or just copy the one I used. Jprw (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked a few people from the peer review thingy to look over this article in the hopes of getting it up to FA status :-) mark nutley (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major problems would include (a) Amazon reviews are pretty meaningless and shouldn't be used in articles, and (b) dust-jacket blurbs are, by their very nature, promotional. The only sources independent of the book are the Ridley and Gilder reviews. And the Gilder review is basically a blog post from a source that has a history of being unreliable. Guettarda (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bolt ref

Andrew e-mailed me and let me know the Andrew Bolt ref is actually about "Caspar and the Jesus Paper" not the book, so i have removed it mark nutley (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]