Talk:D. Fairchild Ruggles

Reception section
All the citations for the Reception section are somewhat doubtful, for a range of reasons. The short puff-snippets that publishers routinely put on leaflets, websites, and the backs of covers are not usable because they aren't truly independent; publishers and authors routinely get friendly people to write something nice about their books, and then they select the best bits, so the statements, even if true, can't be relied upon, and certainly never give a balanced view of any work.

We should be citing either major newspapers' book reviews (directly and in full, not via the tender mercies of Amazon's product review pages) or academic journals' book reviews, of which there must be plenty in this case.

The upshot is, that the entire section needs to be reworked and properly cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've found just two academic reviews so far, only with first-page access alas. There will certainly be more for the 2020 book in due course. Given that academic books always get at least three academic reviews, it rather looks as if Google Scholar has actually failed to locate these... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)