Talk:Orthodoxy (book)

Original Research
Is there any reason the "Analysis of the text" and "Chapter Summaries" sections shouldn't be removed in their entirety? They are completely unreferenced and obviously original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is trying to follow WikiProject:Books guidelines. It does need extensive copyediting to rm bias. Project guidelines state "report on the content of the book and how it is organized. This can include any thesis and major illustrative examples. Do not try to re-organize the content, just summarize and report it." The article needs improvement, doubtless, but it is on the right track IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Long lists of "notable quotes" for each chapter are certainly not on the right track, nor are indiscriminate quotes from the text. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the original research summary, plus the exhaustive table of contents and per-chapter summaries. Per WP:B, that content isn't necessary, and OR is never welcome. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical Editing
— Assignment last updated by MinatureNalgene (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Structural Organizing
This article is concise, but it lacks sufficient information. A reader would not be able to come to this page and walk away with a decent knowledge of this book (there may be more information on Orthodoxy in the article on G.K. Chesterton than here).

According to WikiProject Books, a standard book article has a lead, brief synopsis, publication information, and a neutral POV analysis of the book's general reception.

My recommendation is to expand on the information currently included (there's some good info here that falls well into these categories), by splitting it into the above sections and adding cited information to flesh out the content. MinatureNalgene (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at reintroducing a "Summary" section. Given the density of Chesterton's writing, it may be easy to get distracted while summarizing. Please feel free to add to/offer critiques/pare down in this section. I think the end goal would be 2-3 paragraphs, max. (please correct me if I'm on the wrong track here). Citing plenty of reliable sources in the summary should help any interested readers find more thorough research material, while keeping this encyclopedic article concise. MinatureNalgene (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)