Talk:Mutiny on the Amistad

Notability
I don't see why this book is notable enough for its own article. Any particular reason? Templarion (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead an tagged it for notability concerns. I don't feel it is notable enough for inclusion, but would be happy to be proven wrong.  I figure if nothing is added to fix it by tuesday I'll bump it to AFD and we'll see what happens.  Templarion (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Google Scholar the book is cited in sixteen papers, has reviews in the New York Times and Georgia Historical Quarterly, which reviews are themselves cited in further papers, and has at least two articles about the book in this last publication. I think you will get torn to pieces if you take this to AfD.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, see, I didn't think to check there. Thanks, I feel much better.  See, talk pages work! Templarion (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be considered a notable book, but the article itself is so spare as to be virtually useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.59 (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mutiny on the Amistad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330050334/http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/discovery/themes/connscholar.92/jones.mutiny.html to http://amistad.mysticseaport.org/discovery/themes/connscholar.92/jones.mutiny.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)