Talk:To the Stars (novel)

Why does it seem
Why does it seem like every day there's a new Scientology article on the front page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.102.229 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read up about Wikipedia's "Did you know" section of the Main Page. If you'd like to see more articles highlighted about other topics we'd love for you to pitch in and contribute. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Npov tag
Re: by  - Please indicate specifically what part of the article has a WP:NPOV issue, so this can be addressed. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC) The Harvard Crimson: To The Stars is considered one of the great classics of science fiction’s “Golden Age.”
 * The article is glowing with positivity about what a great novel it is. "It is seen as one of the classics of the Golden Age of Science Fiction." Really? It is "sourced" with a link that doesn't say WHO considers it to be a classic, just that it simply is. That is hardly a valid source of literary criticism. 69.158.97.250 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This info is sourced to The Harvard Crimson and Publishers Weekly, and I added attribution to it as such. Can you bring forth any independent sources which give negative criticism or state otherwise? Cirt (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Publishers Weekly: Readers used to today's bloated SF tomes will appreciate Hubbard's ability to pack an epic into relatively few pages- this is indeed golden SF from the Golden Age.


 * If you can cite alternate viewpoints from other independent secondary sources that satisfy the WP:RS guideline and the WP:V policy I would gladly incorporate those sources into the article. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, it is an enjoyable novel (certainly better than Battlefield Earth), and probably his best work, but I have never heard of anyone calling it a classic, let alone a classic "of the Golden Age of Science Fiction." The Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, and that was an article about an album and a band, not the book. Therefore, I do not see it as a valid source here, unless you want to use it as a reference for the band's appreciation of the author of some sort. 69.158.97.250 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but it is a second source in addition to the other source, Publishers Weekly, which, to quote you from above, is most certainly "a valid source of literary criticism". If you cannot bring forth other independent sources to back up your position then I will remove the npov tag.  Cirt (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see where Publishers Weekly called it a "classic" of any sort. You could write that 'Publishers Weekly called it "golden SF from the Golden Age."' 69.158.109.183 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)