Talk:Enlightenment Now

Sources for reception/coverage
I've been trying to keep up with the coverage and reception this book has been getting. Here's a list of the sources about it I've found that aren't already cited in the article:


 * Review in the London Times
 * Interview about the book in The Weekly Standard
 * Review in The Conversation
 * Interview about the book in Scientific American
 * Review in Quartzy
 * Interview about the book in The Day
 * Review in the Evening Standard
 * Review in Harvard Magazine
 * Interview about the book in the Washington Post
 * Review in Tricycle
 * Summary essay in the Wall Street Journal
 * Interview about the book by WAMU
 * Summary essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education
 * Review in The Gazette
 * Listed among best books of the month by CS Monitor
 * There also is an interview about the book in Smashing Interviews magazine, which is on Wikipedia's URL blacklist, even though the magazine appears to satisfy WP:RS. If a consensus forms that the article should cite this source, I'll make a request that the URL be whitelisted.

I'd like to discuss which of these reviews are important enough to be cited here. I think that the review from the London Times definitely should be, but some of the other reviews I've listed are from newspapers and magazines I'm not familiar with, so I don't know how prominent they are. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Softball interviews with the author aren't reliable independent secondary sources, and should be used sparingly. Most of the reviews listed seem fine, for tricycle and harvard magazine you'd need to provide some evidence that they are WP:RS that possess WP:WEIGHT.

Anyone know of a non-blog source for Stuart Pimm's position on extinctions being misrepresented in the book? -- Jeandré, 2018-03-16t12:41z

Quillette
I understand that Quillette is not seen in good light in general, however I don't see why a relevant opinion about the book by them was removed.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  16:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)