Talk:Love Medicine

Importance
I've changed the classification of this novel. Going by the wikiproject's scale, this is of High importance, as it is one of the five most significant novels of the Native American Renaissance. Vizjim (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Original Research
I did a massive edit to this page as "Akbarret" in 2007 as a graded assignment for a graduate-level literature course. Obviously, we didn't review the tenets of Wikipedia editing because there is a plethora of original research and some points of opinion. Since that course, I hadn't thought about it until last year when I came back. I am now enrolled in Wikipedia + Libraries course and would like to begin fixing this article. In the near future I will be removing pieces of original research, opinion, and adding much-needed citations. I hope you all will forgive a student and her professor. IndianaBibLib317260 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Major Revisions to Love Medicine Page
Hello, I am writing on behalf of a student group from Georgia State University in conjunction with the Wiki Education Program. Our revisions to the Love Medicine Page were done according to guidelines set out by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Here is a summary of the revisions we made to the Love Medicine Page:

1. Deletion of "Overview" and "Chapters" sections: The “chapters” section appears unnecessary, given that the information presented - a list of chapter titles and their narrators - is trivial, and that Wikipedia does not consider “chapters” a standard component of novel articles (see “Manual of Style”). Likewise, the “overview” section is not considered a standard article component by Wikipedia, and can easily be integrated into other, more appropriate sections such as “plot summary” and “major themes”

2. Revision and Streamlining of "Plot Summary": Wikipedia recommends that plot summaries “be concise…[and kept to] three or four paragraphs” (see “Manual of Style”). The character summary and the plot summary were combined into a single section and was significantly condensed, with a brief mention of the three key events in the novel.

3. Replacement of "Major Themes": The scope of the existing major themes section was extremely limited and failed to refer to any secondary sources. We provided a complete re-write based on a survey of scholarship on the topic.

4. Addition of "Style": The "Style" section is considered a critical component of novel articles by Wikipedia (see “Manual of Style”). As such, we provided a new section based on a survey of scholarship on the topic.

5. Addition of "Background," "Reception," "Publication History," "Further Reading": All sections are considered standard components of novel articles by wikipedia (see “Manual of Style”). As such, we provided a new section based on a survey of scholarship on the topic.

6. Revision of Lead Section to correct factual inaccuracies/speculation and to reflect major changes made to the body of the page.

7. Updates to Infobox content

Thank you for your interest - we will happily answer and address any questions or concerns regarding the changes we made to the page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quanne00 (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your improvements to the article! I just wanted to mention that new Talk page comments should be added at the bottom of the page, not the top. And it's helpful if you always sign your comments. The easiest way to do this is with four tildes ( ~ ). See WP:SIG for more info. (I'm already watching this page, so you don't have to ping me if you reply.) Happy editing! — Shelf Skewed  Talk  03:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)