# Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President

That phrase seriously drops the ball just short the goal-line. My imagination is not fertile enuf to compete in the race to something more ... hmm, perhaps "sarcastic" is the concept i'm groping toward. But in fact, it's not our job to invent it, but to monitor the FB & and twit chatter and report on their consensus as to which phrase comes out on top of the "Puncture MP's pretensions" competition.--Jerzy•t 21:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The colon after "Marlon Bundo's" does not appear on the book's cover or title page, nor is it listed that way on Amazon. Is there any particular reason why it's in the title here? Indyguy (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I expect it's an error, but can wait for other input on the titling. Oddly, Amazon and Google book sites remove "A" as well as the colon. —ADavidB 22:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I treated it as a title and subtitle when providing the link which probably prompted the generation of this page. It is common practice to separate title and subtitle with a colon (per WP:SUBTITLE). It is an awkwardly-written title and this probably reflects the frequent mistranscription. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Except it's not actually a title followed by a subtitle.  If anything, it's a pretitle followed by a title - noone would ever refer to this book as Marlon Bundo's.  The colon makes no sense, this is more like Lee Daniels' The Butler.--Pharos (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the comparison to Lee Daniels' The Butler is a good one and would support removing the colon. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, Marlon Bundo's Day in the Life of the Vice President is the name actually used on their website and Amazon, and most outside publications, and perhaps we should use that.  Obviously this doesn't exactly match the book cover, but I think preference would go to how it is used in regular print.--Pharos (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't have an objection to dropping the colon. I took this to be a case of Orlando: A Biography but Lee Daniels' The Butler is a reasonable counterpoint. I don't support dropping the "A" however. While Amazon does have the incorrect title listed, search strings for the title on Google News include "A" at about ten times the rate as drop the "A". I also feel uncomfortable introducing an obvious error into the title. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
@Indyguy, Adavidb, IronGargoyle, Pharos,  and Barkeep49: any objections to moving this article to A Day in the Life of the Vice President per WP:SUBTITLES? Please read that guideline carefully. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SUBTITLES is about omitting the secondary part of a title (the subtitle).  You're proposing omitting the first part, which I understand is included in most all external sources.  Thus, I don't consider removing "Marlon Bundo's" to be appropriate here. —ADavidB 12:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Adavidb: If an authoritative edition of a book has letters of various size on its title page, everything after the largest print is (usually) considered "subtitle" in the context of this guideline Never mind. wumbolo ^^^ 12:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

They are improperly named (used multiple times), and for the Vanity Fair source it says |work=New York Post. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Noted, and will be fixed after I read up on references in the manual. Dalsegnoalfine (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

For the reception section, I'm still looking for some critical reviews that have something to say about the book's artistic merits. What I found so far is rather negative. Would like to balance with some positive reviews (if there are any). Preferably from respected sources. Dalsegnoalfine (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Added three reviews I found from reputable sources. Also found 1 which was positive but didn't jump out at me as WP:Reliable so I didn't add it.Barkeep49 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

There is already a link to the Parody of the book up the very top of the page, therefore there is no need for any explanation of the parody book in the remainder of the article. leveni 25 April 2018

I am not completely sure I understand what you're saying so please correct me if I have misunderstood. However what I think you are saying is since the parody is listed in Wp:LEAD it doesn't need to have its own satire section below. If so I respectfully disagree. The idea of the top section is to summarize the most important information below. So if it's in the top it needs to be explained more below. However in looking at the article I am not sure that the length of the satire section compared to the rest needs to be as long as it is.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Leveni: WP:HATNOTE says that we should explain articles in the lead and body, but not in the hatnote. This is what we're doing here. wumbolo ^^^ 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: :@Barkeep49: WP:HATNOTE says Keep explanations to a minimum; explain vital information only, but the Satire section of the article is about half of the whole article. What the person editing it has done is make wikipedia their own personal voice piece. One very short sentence should suffice with a link to the satire article. leveni 26 April 2018
@Leveni: while the books are separate, a lot of the coverage is intertwined and a short paragraph should summarize the other book in my opinion. wumbolo ^^^ 13:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
It may take two paragraphs to fit all the needed details, given the way the two books are covered and contrasted.  - C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I am knee deep in doing some other editing and so am not in a good frame of mind to do so myself now, but I would support an effort to trim this section as it does seem to be WP:UNDUE now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
@Levni:I did a pass earlier today to condense the section and came back to give another go and I'm not seeing any other obvious candidates for removal. What's left is a paragraph about the parody and then two paragraphs detailing Pence's reaction and the publisher's reaction both which seem appropriate for this page. Hopefully this addresses the concern. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I, for one like the way the section currently reads.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no like or hate involved. The rules are straight forward. "Keep explanations to a minimum; explain vital information only" The satire section goes into too much detail and is a clear violation of the rules.leveni 21:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
It seems you're applying hatnote guidelines (i.e. minimal, vital info) to article sections; the hatnote guidelines apply to hatnotes only. —ADavidB 22:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Leveni: I think MOS:FICT is the guideline in play here. In particular I see the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction#Accuracy_and_appropriate_weight as what you're talking aboutArticles must be written from a neutral point of view and must give due weight to all aspects of the subject. Editors should also give appropriate weight to all elements of the article (e.g., images and text, as well as infoboxes and succession boxes). The goal is to attain the greatest possible degree of accuracy in covering the topic at hand...
Given this I feel like the article currently is following the gudieline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we need a "Release" section discussing the book tour. wumbolo ^^^ 12:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The plot section has a lot of references. Does anybody have the book to confirm the plot is accurate and comprehensive? wumbolo ^^^ 20:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have read the book (but don't have it in front of me at the moment). The plot section is accurate (and it's definitely unusual for a plot section to be so third-party sourced).Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any Google results since April with updated information about the book tour. It is not unusual in book articles to note there was a book tour, frequently sourced before the start of it as here. I don't know that an update tag is needed. @Wumbolo: Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The article currently states that a book tour was scheduled. Well, it was scheduled, and it happened. There are a few references that can be used: [1] [2]. wumbolo ^^^ 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Good finds. I have put in the Post article (the LA Times one didn't seem to add anything new). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 23:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments

Not sure why the "for the" hatnote has the book title in not italics, I understand the mechanics but wouldn't it be better to not use the italics markup in the hatnote so it does render as italics?
"father of Charlotte Pence and husband of Karen Pence" probably no need to repeat Pence both times here, especially as you mentioned them by name in the previous sentence.
"ultimately so did the publisher of the book, Regnery. " the book has changed subject here to the satired version, I take it this means the publisher of this book?
"on March 19, 2018 by " comma after year.
"Nixon and Reagan presidential libraries" any links possible for those of us who have no idea what these are?
" Washington D.C." comma missing after Washington.
"Publisher's Weekly" that should be in italics.
"favored the Twiss book" first mention of Twiss, this should be noted earlier so we know what "the Twiss book" is.
"real BOTUS...The book" ellipsis should have space on either side.
" vice president.[23][24][10]" numerical order for refs.
"Author Charlotte Pence" I don't think you need to reiterate her status as author again.
You link Twitter but not Instagram first time round.  I'd link both or neither.
That's it.  Nothing fundamentally wrong here, so I'll put it on hold while these minor issues are discussed and resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I believe I've addressed all the comments raised above. I appreciate your suggestions and comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
TRM: A note that the hatnote change was undone by davidb with the edit summary all italics in hatnote by default. Correct MOS formatting in this situation is something one or both of you are likely to know better than I and so I defer about the best way to handle this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'm happy with this now, the changes look good so I'm promoting to GA.  Nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Voyaging: I have restored, minus the Amazon rating, the parts you removed as in-line with the version that went through the GA review. Could we discuss anything else you think should also be removed at this point? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The article A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo says more about the fake reviews of this book than this article. wumbolo ^^^ 18:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I looked into getting that one up to GA and decided it needed a bunch of work and I was more motivated to work on other stuff instead. I have deleted the amazon rating from there but left the other stuff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no other apparent issues with the article. My edit was as such: the claim "Later that day, it was no longer possible to review the Pences' book without purchasing it and one-star ratings from non-buyers had been removed" is tenuous at best because a couple of reviews from March 19 and 20 are from non-Verified Buyers. It is perhaps possible that it was temporarily limited, but the source says "We’ve reached out to Amazon to confirm whether this was the case" with no follow-up. It certainly does appear Amazon made some sort of action given that ~95%+ of the reviews from those dates are from "Verified Buyers", but I'd like to see another reliable source for that claim. As for the claim "On its launch date, a number of one-star reviews with negative comments were left on the book's Amazon page by non-buyers who favored the parody book, A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo." I have no doubt that indeed happened, but the source claiming it presents it more as speculation. Again, I think a better source should be found. Interested in your thoughts. As for now I am in agreement with keeping the article as you edited it until a better source is found. One thing, I'd perhaps suggest removing the line "who favored the parody book, A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo", as it isn't clear that all of or even the majority of negative reviews were from fans of that book, as opposed to general critics of Vice President Pence (nor does the source state as such: "Other one-star reviews currently on the page are clearly from Oliver fans" -- "[o]ther" implying in addition to the other negative reviews that don't mention the parody book.) If not removing the line, perhaps including the qualifier "some of whom favored the parody book" or something along those lines. Voyagingtalk 02:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have added a second source which hopefully addresses your concerns. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)