Talk:Fancies Versus Fads

Reception
Some notes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books

czar 04:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it? Sweeping claim but appears to be just the author's opinion and not necessarily the author speaking authoritarily about a group of scholars. I.e., who considers it the best? Chesterton scholars? Contemporaneous reviewers? Etc. So best to add attribution here, "according to Dale Ahlquist" or "Chesterton Society President Dale Ahlquist says".
 * There's still room to be syncretic without becoming original research. For example, you can use the "-+" (mixed) ratings listed in Book Review Digest to say: FVF received mixed reviews from the Freeman, the New Statesman, the NY Tribune, and the Spectator, who praised X[specific citations] and questioned Y[specific citations]. The Outlook praised A while The Times Literary Supplement thought it was a detractor. Etc. Otherwise it can just appear as a series of "X said" text or a version of proseline.

Dates
As he was English, please use dmy dates. (Also of course British English, although outside of quotes, which of course should be left as written, I don't see any points of difference as yet). Thanks Pam  D  05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Chapters"?
Perhaps "Essays", or "Contents", might be better section title? Pam D  05:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)