Talk:On Directing Film

Fair use rationale for Image:OnDirectingFilm-bookcover.jpg
Image:OnDirectingFilm-bookcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Book report or Wikipedia article
This "article" has more a "book report" feel to it than a article feel to it. Basically, all of the sources cited are to the book itself which makes it read like one long "plot summary" or "synopsis" like you'd find in CliffNotes. Whether a book is Wikipedia notable for an article to be written about it per WP:NBOOK is going to be primarily determined by whether the book has received WP:SIGCOV in WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT sources apart from the book itself or the author who wrote it. Critical reviews in major reliable sources or evidence that received major awards, etc. are things relevant to this article and should be added to the article if they exist. It might be better to refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article for an idea as to how articles about non-fiction books are recommend to be written, or look at examples of WP:FA articles for suggestions. Moreover, the excessive detail in the plot summary for each chapter is not really something that is needed; content about the format/layout of the book can be added and perhaps some key themes, etc. should be also mentioned (if supported by citations to secondary sources and not WP:OR), but there's really no need for such a detailed breakdown of each chapter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with you. The expansion did not meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've reverted to before the inappropriate expansion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was a far too detailed synopsis (AFAIK WP:OR is generally allowed for synopses). I'm not sure whether WikiProject Books has a guideline on length, but while we can do better than 105 words, I seriously doubt 9,000 words would be acceptable either (most book summaries I see are under 700-1,000 words). I'd encourage to trim their addition here and/or publish their full work somewhere else if it doesn't infringe on any copyrights. (And yes, there's the question of whether Mamet's book meets notability criteria.)  Daß  &thinsp;  Wölf  15:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. My post might of been confusing with respect to WP:NOR. It's OK, as is mentioned by Daß Wölf, for a plot summary/synopsis to be original research, but I believe any interpretations of the book's key themes or other things about the book are what needed to be supported by citations to secondary reliable sources; in other editors should not be adding their interpretations of the book to the article, unless of course they are trying to do so per WP:SELFCITE. I'm also not sure whether it's necessary for any plot summary/synopsis to done on a chapter by chapter basis. If, for example, a book is broken down into major parts with different things being discussed, then it might make sense to summarize its content in a similar manner to some degree; however, actually having separate sections for each individual chapter and then expounding on what was discussed in each chapter in a fair amount of detail seems (in my opinion) to be the wrong approach to take, which is why the previous version seemed more like a book report than article to me. Maybe it's hard to not do such a thing for non-fiction works since there's not really a "story" to write about like you might be able to do with fiction, but maybe also for that reason such a long plot summary/synopsis is also not needed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)