Talk:SparkNotes

message: A lot of info in the article is terribly redundant and restated. The same statements and concepts are repeated throughout the text, leading to the presence of redundancy. 
20 February 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.175.143 (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Department of Redundancy Department 

message: The Honors and AP English teachers at my school heavily criticize SparkNotes for its unreliability... Anyone else have this situation? If so, I think there should be a section on Critcism. 69.19.14.36 04:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most criticism of it is unfounded i believe.  I find that most teachers criticize it because it's "cheating" to find notes of a book, almost entirely eliminating the need to read the book.  The "unreliability" i hear mostly stems from the dynamicness of Sparknotes and the fact that most teachers cannot keep up with providing tests that cover material not in sparknotes. Liquidtenmillion 22:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Liquidtenmillion, most criticism of sparknotes is born out of frustration. Jcp20 01:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like a criticisms section. Sparknotes encourage students to not read the actual book. Also, I have seen simple spelling mistakes on the website. 68.197.167.243 18:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your opinion on SparkNotes, and the fact that there are spelling errors on the site, doesn't matter whatsoever in the creation of a Criticism section. - JNighthawk 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not that this matters, everyone who only used Sparknotes without reading the original source material would have real difficulties... unless they were uber-smart, and in that case, they would have read the original material anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a lot like using Wikipedia as a reference - if you are writing about a book, then it is in your interest to read the book, and a variety of reviews. If you write a book review based on only one other book review, rather than on your own interpretation of the book, then you are "reviewing a review of a book".Garrie 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This article reads like a press release, especially non-NPOV phrases like "SparkNotes has become an emblem of the recent college-oriented counterculture around the country."  What does that even mean?  An emblem?  I've added some citation needed markers, but the page as it currently exists belongs more properly on SparkNotes's own site, not wikipedia. thither 03:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the best I can to make this article a bit more NPOV.  I don't want to seem as though I'm waging a one-person war against the site, but the article was terrible and not getting better.  It could use a lot more work, but at least now it's a little less PR-looking.  Does anybody actually know about the history of this site, current employees excluded?--thither 08:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Press release 

message: I know the article talks about the company being bought by B&N and them making improvements, but I want to know how involved the creators are/were in this.  DO they still run the site? Do they approve of the changes? How do they feel about the printed resources?  I was hoping to find this information in the article so if anyone knows anything it should be added.  Or even if someone could find out the answers to these questions and add them that would be great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.6.31 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creators of Sparknote 

message: Oh man, the writing quality was disastrous on this one. I fixed it up as best I could, but it's still not very good. The article should probably be longer and needs more citations. Anyone want to tackle that, feel free... Lcduke 00:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article really has a problem with citations, most of it is easily summarizable from the web site and print catalogs. I'm moving the cite tag from "teachers often accuse" to the sentence that talks about how teachers feel, though..  As for it being longer, well, it was. Sighrik 02:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:Be bold. Basically, if you think a page needs improvement, improve it! --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible writing 

message: :Image:Sparknotes1.gif 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 Wikipedia: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 08:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sparknotes1.gif

message: If anyone wants to improve this article, I have found a reliable independent source (The Chronicle of Higher Education). Here are the two articles  and . However, it's paid so I can't access it. If anyone has a web pass, please include the information from these two articles. Thank you. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... looking through Google News archives I see numerous valuable references that are paid. Please try to include these. Puchiko (Talk-email) 15:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resources 

message: The criticism section contained the rather dubious sentence "Many school teachers have blamed the website as a cheating tool for students, while doing reading assignments or during tests using cellphones with internet access." I tagged it with a citation needed and attribution needed tag, like this: "Many school teachers  have blamed the website as a cheating tool for students, while doing reading assignments or during tests using cellphones with internet access. " User:PhoenixMourning removed the tags, leaving a hidden comment "This doesn't need to be referenced, as many sites of this nature upset teachers." I disagree. "many sites of this nature upset teachers" is basically WP:Original Research. The whole statement is kinda POV-maybe it should just go if we can't find a source?I'll be reworking the criticism section tomorrow-I've found references for SparkNotes being banned in some schools and stuff. I think we should replace the POV statement ("Many school teachers have blamed the website as a cheating tool for students, while doing reading assignments or during tests using cellphones with internet access.") with solid referenced facts. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of referencing, though it could still use a lot of work. Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing the criticism section 

message: A list of covered books has recently been added to the article. I am not sure if it should be there, since it's disproportionally lengthy compared to the rest of the article. I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic, but am not sure that it's not either. What's everyone's opinion on it? Puchiko (Talk-email) 22:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a catalog, which is what the list amounts to. As you point out, there are also weight issues with the list. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books 

message: Weren't Monarch Notes the grand-daddy of all of these types of study guides?  Why is there no article on them?  They were the study guide, bar none, not all that long ago (20 years or so) ... and they were quite a significant force.  Thanks.   (64.252.115.254 (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with the above post 100%.  I am very surprised that there is no article on Monarch Notes.  Monarch Notes certainly were the study guides, back in the day.  They are most likely out of print by now and, thus, are not used (or even known) by the younger generation of students.  Nonetheless, Monarch Notes warrants a Wikipedia article.  Thanks.   (64.252.65.146 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: yep totally agree to above stated?  very interesting how I could not find information on Monarch Notes..  Almost felt like they change the name or something.. 68.116.173.244 (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarch Notes 

message: Just noticed this, and did a double-take. "Barnes and Noble has also come under criticism for selling students' required books and the reading guides that students use to avoid reading those books, exploiting both school systems and students. The website does not have a summary of many important books, like the mysterious affair at styles." The first part stats out by violating NPOV and then becomes unsubstantiated soapboxing, unless sources can be found. The second sentence makes no sense whatsoever. Both have now been removed. --99.253.247.155 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Soapboxing/Nonesense  

message: This page says the sold for ~3 million, while http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Yagan claims they sold for ~30 million.
I can't be bothered to investigate, but thought I would point out this possible error.24.179.155.84 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price Discrepancy