Talk:And Then We Moved to Rossenarra: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris Day No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger (→Problematic lines: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
Small change to fix categories. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:37, 28 August 2008 (CDT) | Small change to fix categories. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:37, 28 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
== Problematic lines == | |||
Just poking my head in here quickly... | |||
"all directed by a fictional Capo invented by Condon as a humorous device, become, by the end of a 300-page book, increasingly tedious. Throughout the book, however, in which the chapters, all with whimsical, old-fashioned names,[3] are presented in a non-chronological manner" | |||
Hmm, well, "increasingly tedious" seems less than perfectly neutral (would Condon agree? Perhaps, but can we plausibly convince the reader that Condon would agree?). That bit reads like a book review, which an encyclopedia article can't be. "Old-fashioned names" is not clear...the footnote helps, but should we rely on footnotes to clarify the ''meaning'' of the text? Also, grammatically, this bit states that the ''chapters'' are presented in non-chronological manner, which is nonsense. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:40, 29 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:40, 29 August 2008
Small change to fix categories. Chris Day 19:37, 28 August 2008 (CDT)
Problematic lines
Just poking my head in here quickly...
"all directed by a fictional Capo invented by Condon as a humorous device, become, by the end of a 300-page book, increasingly tedious. Throughout the book, however, in which the chapters, all with whimsical, old-fashioned names,[3] are presented in a non-chronological manner"
Hmm, well, "increasingly tedious" seems less than perfectly neutral (would Condon agree? Perhaps, but can we plausibly convince the reader that Condon would agree?). That bit reads like a book review, which an encyclopedia article can't be. "Old-fashioned names" is not clear...the footnote helps, but should we rely on footnotes to clarify the meaning of the text? Also, grammatically, this bit states that the chapters are presented in non-chronological manner, which is nonsense. --Larry Sanger 09:40, 29 August 2008 (CDT)