Talk:Cecelia Holland
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]Okay. I've done a bunch of copyediting on other folks' pages, I've added to and enhanced other pages, but this is the first (major) article I've posted from scratch.
I know a lot about this author, both personally and critically, and I need some guidance regarding how much interpretative criticism is "allowed" without seeming to lose the NPOV. My comments are a distillation of reading a very large number of reviews over several decades (I'm a librarian in a large urban system with a major involvement in collection development); for that reason, I would be hard put to attribute a particular critique to a particular source. But I've tried to exclude my own personal tastes and favorites. At the same time, simply saying "American author, wrote these books" doesn't seem to do any service to the reader.
I haven't been able to find a discussion anywhere on the subject of "averaged out" literary criticism vs. NPOV. Any suggestions?
- Michael K. Smith 17:31, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that 'her style is impeccable' is transparently not encyclopaedic or NPOV. "Simply saying "American author, wrote these books" doesn't seem to do any service to the reader." Perhaps, but that is not an excuse to then insert some of your personal views. It is not a choice between your personal praise and having not evaluative material whatsoever. Rather, if what you say about her style is correct, it stands to reason she will have received similar praise from other sources (reviews) and these sources may be quoted with the correct citations along with any dissenting opinions. As it stands this article is a hymn to a certain author by Michael K Smith, not an encyclopedic entry upon the author and what praise, if any, she has received from significant literary figures. 94.193.220.27 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have attempted to improve the neutrality of the article, by the removal of the most grossly non-encyclopedic words and phrases. Really, what it needs, if any comment on her style is to be made, is some quotations from proper literary critics. I have seen articles DELETED for less blatant bias. oh, and I LIKE her work a lot.
IceDragon64 (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Cecelia Holland page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Cecelia Holland" page.
- Biography articles of living people
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
- Arts and entertainment work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Low-importance children and young adult literature articles
- C-Class Women writers articles
- Low-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles