Talk:Getting It: The psychology of est/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 25, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

A very good article, I'm amazed this wasn't created earlier, very organised references and prose. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Qst 22:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyedits and book publish info

Actually it is quite common in articles about books on Wikipedia to include the publish info in the lead, and what editions of the book were printed. And actually "est" in all lowercase, is the more common occurrence of the term, not all uppercase. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is being used to show that there was a second edition printed, please do not remove it as a reference. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that second edition the only subsequent one? In any case, this is information that does not appear anywhere in the body. My understanding is that the lead should only summarize what is in the body. A section on the book's publication history (sales, subsequent editions) would indeed be useful, and would then justify a mention in the lead. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there is just not enough info on sales/publication history to have its own subsection, and I see no problem having one brief mention of a second edition in the lead, this is common on book articles. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: moved this info out of the article lead. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Age

It seems to me that the problem here is that Chamberlin says nothing about F's age when Getting It came out, or even about Getting It at all. It involves some maths (as Chamberlin is writing in 1998 and says F is 55) to figure out roughly how old she must have been in 1976. That smacks of original research to me.

Meanwhile, my library catalogue (and presumably the Library of Congress note inside the book's front cover, too) says she was born in 1942. If we're going to cite anything for her age, I say cite that. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, can you provide information to satisfy WP:V if someone else wants to check, to cite that? Cirt (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it's in the Library of Congress details on the book's inside front cover; that's no doubt where the library cataloguer got the information. One would have thought the Library of Congress is a reliable source. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And this is the LoC info:
LC Control Number: 76020617
Brief Description: Fenwick, Sheridan, 1942-
Getting it : the psychology of est / Sheridan Fenwick.
1st ed.
Philadelphia : Lippincott, c1976.
191 p. ; 22 cm.
ISBN: 0397011709
LC Call Number: RC489.E7 F46
Dewey Number: 158
--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: Jbmurray (talk · contribs) added this info to the article with cite and it looks fine this way. Cirt (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)