Talk:The Scarab Murder Case

Fair use rationale for Image:SSVanDine TheScarabMurderCase.jpg
Image:SSVanDine TheScarabMurderCase.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 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 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External Link to Mystery*File blog
After consulting with Carl Bunderson, I am undoing his deletion of the external link to my Mystery*File blog. Mystery*File is a scholarly activity, with many well-known mystery authors and editors contributing. It is totally non-commercial, and I am adding this link only for informational purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.31.40 (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's non-commercial. I have to object to the word "scholarly", because this activity is in no sense peer-reviewed.  Essentially, we have no idea of the qualifications of the author in question that give her "expert" status; I note from tracing the link that the author of the review is a writer of mysteries herself, but that status doesn't seem to lend her any particular expertise in the area of Golden Age mysteries (I'd be more accepting of her expertise if she was sufficiently expert to make the New York Times best-seller list or had published criticism in that area).  The specific review doesn't have any intellectual rigour, there is no analysis beyond "I guessed the criminal's identity and you probably will too", and no attempt to enlighten the reader about either Van Dine's individual history (and where exactly this volume fits in) or how this volume and Van Dine fit into the Golden Age mystery.  It's also possible that this link is being provided simply to drive traffic to the author's website.  I agree with the original deletion, suggest the citation be re-removed, and suggest that in the future, individual entries in the Mystery*File blog be considered on a case-by-case basis.  If there is expertise there, let's cite it; this doesn't seem to have any.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. Writing mysteries gives you no particular insight into reviewing mysteries. And yes, you're correct in that regard also, that's all it is, a review, not criticism. (Seriously, you have to make the New York Times best-seller list to qualify for a Wiki link?)

Sometimes formal criticism is supplied in a Mystery*File post, more often not. If Mystery*File is too casual for the Wikipedia's purposes, in spite of the extensive bibliographies provided (not in S. S. Van Dine's case, you're right), and in spite of Edgar-winning contributors such as Marvin Lachman, Francis M. Nevins, Jr., Walter Albert and MWA Grand Master Bill Pronzini, as well as Allen J. Hubin, author of Crime Fiction IV, the definite bibliography of every work of detective and mystery fiction published through the year 2000, just say the word. I've appealed once, and I won't again. Lewis62 (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)