Talk:George Rabasa

Article issues
Further explanation at: New contributors' help page and at User talk:James Cihlar. – ukexpat (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the lead paragraph and removed the reviews section, to bring this article more in line with most other articles about individual novelists.  —  Soap  —  02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The current tags are IMO generally warranted. Specifically:
 * Advertisement: The "reviews" of a type and tone that sound like blurb-quotes to be found on the cover of a book for sale, justified the "advertisement" tag when it was placed. The summeries in the "Novels" section that remain in the article also sound like blurbs, for example "Adam Webb narrates this novel of young love gone bad, exploring his infatuation with Francine Haggard, Ms. Entropia, and its descent into obsession and tragedy." Some are also uncited and therefore at least arguably represent original research.
 * Peacock terms: "The Cleansing features evocative description of the drug-influenced, socially experimental, and politically corrupt era of mid- to late-century Mexico City." is an example, particularly "evocative". "run the gamut of modern obsessions" and "slyly twisting them into surreal and prescient fables" are also examples. However the remaining pecock terms can IMO be fairly easily eliminated.
 * References: Pages of vendor sites, such as Amazon are generally not considered independent and are discouraged if the same info is available from other sites, such as OCLC. Amazon in particular is notoriously unreliable about certain facts, such as publication dates and page counts. it is also unreliable about publisher names for older works, although usually accurate for current works. Interviews with the subject and the subjects web site are also not independent and may not be reliable. The same applies to publisher sites. However, discounting all those there does seem to be a number of cited references, and i'm not sure if this tag really holds up at present. But far too many of the current refs are to sources not independent of the subject.
 * A "Critical response" section would be good, but it should cite published independent reviews directly, and quote relevant conclusions, not the sort of "a word here ... and a word there ... and a good thought over here" style often used by publisher's blurbs. DES (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The tags should be removed for this article.--James Cihlar (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor awards shouldn't be in the article. That does make it look like advertising. I've also removed the Amazon links, we shouldn't be linking to specific sales sites. I agree with DES. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on George Rabasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091213081447/http://www.und.edu:80/org/ndq/ to http://www.und.edu/org/ndq/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on George Rabasa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113143405/http://www.engl.unt.edu:80/alr/past_issues.html to http://www.engl.unt.edu/alr/past_issues.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)