Talk:Giles Milton

Untitled
The article would be improved if the list of titles by Milton were not linked and were given bibliographic details. The publication details of White gold are: Publisher: Hodder & Stoughton Date of publication: 2004 ISBN 0-340-79469-0 We also need to know Giles Milton's Date of Birth and education etc.

Vernon White 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 

Critical acclaim sections
Glad to see the work that has gone into expanding this piece about this excellent British writer. The only problem I see with the piece, as it now stands (and it is greatly improved), is the separate section of 'critical acclaim' on each book. This seems a bit awkward to me. Far better would be a list of each work and a description (and there is now), and then one section on critical acclaim. I find it a distraction to have several sections devoted to critical acclaim. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole article - and especially the "critical acclaim" section - looks to me distastefully like promotional material. This is the kind of thing publishers slap on the back of popular histories. A sentence or two on Milton's standing as a writer of popular historical works would be more than adequate. Links can be provided to reviews in newspapers and magazines rather than quoting excerpts from them. It is not - I understand - the business of Wikipedia to advertise books on behalf of writers or publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.204.122 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

copyed
I did an extensive general copyed 1/. "historian" inappropriate for writer of popular boos who is not a scholar. 2/ Removed excessive use of his name & book titles. 3/The existing article is first of all highly promotional, and written in a style that would normally indicate his major works are intended for children--I am rewritinjg in more mature English. 4/ More work to go.  DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Pruning
This article is a tad bit too long and could use some judicious pruning. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI, I pruned it (see section below), so maybe you have some opinions on the new version. Hiko (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Pruned
The article reads a lot like it was written by the author or as promotional material, just going into deep detail of each work, without much indication to the relevance of it. If there should be extensive summaries of the contents of the books, there should be some indication as to why and how they are so relevant, but in the article before I edited it was barely any secondary source that made that clear. I think it would be possible to show it for one or two most relevant works, but I doubt every work is relevant enough. FYI @TuckerResearch Hiko (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)