Talk:True at First Light

message: Good article, don't see much about what actually happens in the book though, an expansion of the plot would be nice. I am going to nominate it for a Ga review. Sadads (talk)
::It's not finished yet. I have a stack of research regarding the article on my desk. Are you nominating yourself for the GA? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other people can nominate, but I will remove for right now, if that is what you want.Sadads (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I would suggest putting the term "Letters" in the footnotes in Italics that way it is not confused with a collection of letters. Sadads (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to italicize but couldn't in the template and because I'm using two sources from Baker I need to differentiate. Actually the source is a collection of letters edited by Baker. But that's a good observation. Will try to fix. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I have never seen that tool used before, interesting. It is not completely neccessary to use that template to direct those type of citations (though I could see how it is useful.)Sadads (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: The content section is rather shoddy, you may want to tell the story of the plot in sequential order, not bounce around the various themes and emphasises of Ernest's perspective. The great thing about plot summaries is that they can be just that: a summary of the plot. Sadads (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't actually read the book - except for some excerpts! From what I've read, the book is peculiar due the editing done to it. At any rate, until I can get a copy of the book and read it, the plot section will remain unfinished, unless somebody else comes along to rewrite it. I'd only intended to plug in some information on this article, but I got interested in the background and the scholarship.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Wonderful! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished the book yesterday and started to expand the section before being interrupted in real life. Will work on it, as I get the time, during the rest of the week. The book is interesting because seemingly minor details are not minor (very Hemingwayesque) so it's hard to decide what to include and what not. I thought it was a good book, though the end seemed a bit forced, probably the result of the editing process. There are some details I didn't find in the literature search, so I need to be certain I haven't left out any important critical opinions and then will be done I hope. My problem with reading Hemingway is that I start to leave out commas and write long sentences like this and combine them with coordinating conjunctions but that isn't very conducive to wiki writing so I have to wait for my brain to reset and forget Hemingway to get a better result here. :) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content section 

message: I would suggest moving the background and development sections up to first section, that way the reader can get an understanding of the development of the book before they are thrown into plot and theme. Sadads (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I had it that way initially and I prefer it that way, but reorganized according to WP:NOVSTY which has themes before background. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your assessment and restored the original organization. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background section 

message: I have finally gotten around to reviewing this article - I'm sorry it took me so long!
*Infoboxes are not required - do you think this one is necessary? The only important information it adds is the publisher and that should really be in the lead anyway.
:*Without the infobox the background section - with the image of the Hemingways - fits at the top, so I think it's best not to have the infobox.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reading too much Hemingway - reworded.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *added Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *cited Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Yes, better. The infobox was in the way before.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Only one doesn't end in a full stop. Do I need leading ellipsis?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I will read this again. Am stuck on MLA with punctuation inside quotation marks. Thanks for noting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Moved end punctuation outside quotation marks unless the quotation ends with a full stop. Is that correct? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yep - it is hard to get used to. This is now second nature to me and my dissertation drafts are full of little corrections, since my professors prefer MLA! Argh! Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Moved and rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Gave it a try. Hopefully it's better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Done and better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Very few. Will look again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *I found some more in LexisNexis. You might try that and other news databases - also Google's news searcher.Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Forgot about one (added), and added two more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: *Love the extra set of eyes! Thanks so much. I've marked the issues that are fixed. Some will take a little more time.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Note Infoboxes are required for Novels articles. Sadads (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they are not - infoboxes are not required anywhere on Wikipedia. That is a common misperception. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Awadewit 

message: A quick scan of the first page shows, "suicide", "fiction" and "memoir" linking to essentially word definitions (along with a few place names).  Is this style correct?
I've just looked it up and these seem to fall into the WP:OVERLINK category.
--Superfly Jon (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read on, you'll find one of the issues of this book is whether it's fiction or not, so in this case, it's probably okay to define both as it has great relevance to the work. As for Kenya and East-Africa, I don't really mind, but seems useful for people/students who have no knowledge of those places. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to word definitions not needed? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion