Wikipedia:Peer review/Dan Savage bibliography/archive1

Dan Savage bibliography
This peer review discussion has been closed. I created this article compiling the author's works together on one page with some referenced material and sourced discussion. suggested to me that it might be ready straightaway for consideration at WP:Featured list candidates &mdash; but I wanted to get a Peer Review first in order to assess feedback prior to nomination.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Note: Provided notices to WikiProject talkpages, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Barack Obama, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media. -- Cirt (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional problems
Just noticed this. Absurd over-emphasis of a minor but notable author. The section on his biography is duplicative both of the main article and the introduction and should be eliminated. The listing of minor works like book reviews is inappropriate except for the most important of authors. There is no justification for the article in the first place, and it should be merged back. The photograph adds nothing of valuer--it belongs in the article about him, but not here. At a possible alternative, it should just contain his bibliography, plain and simple,

I shall boldly make the changes I suggested, and I shall then consider listing it at Requested merges.  DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to strongly agree. Wikipedia is not a platform for Dan Savage fanwankery, and has been abused as such for several years now, to much and repeated controversy (e.g., multiple, rancorous and inconclusive AfDs of Santorum (neologism)). Enough is enough. The very existence of this page is silly, and the fact that it's more detail-wallowing by about an order of magnitude than Mark Twain bibliography is strong evidence that it's non-encyclopedic crap.  NB: I actually read Savage here and there and find him usually very amusing, frequently insightful, and rarely wrongheaded, so I'm not coming at this from an "Anti-DS" viewpoint. I'm simply against using WP as a fan page.  This is not Geocities or MySpace. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 14:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)