Talk:The Immortals (Hickman novel)

message: I rated it C class because it is fairly well written and referenced, but there's not a lot to the article. The plot summary could be expanded, mentioning, for example, the name of the protagonist and a few more details. Also, if you can find the information, I would suggest a critical reception section with more reviews. All in all, it is definitely much improved from the original. Good work! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest reviewing the C criteria more. It really isn't "well-written" and while yes, its referenced, that alone does not make it a C when it doesn't even should notability. Reset back to stub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: C may have been a bit hasty. What do you think about start? PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is what I would have put - but you are right the article is heading in the right general direction. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Improvements 

message: I think this is notable enough - "Added  tag to article using" should be answered by adding more supporting materiall to the article to improve it and demonstrate the impact of the work and author. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree, Kevin, but the problem is that suitable material doesn't exist. The bias toward mainstream media as reliable sources pretty much closes the door on new media. As far as mainstream criticism goes, this was an unfortunate experimental work by an otherwise half decent genre author when it was published. The significance of it is not as a book, but as a podcast novel -- one of the earliest examples of a print work going to podcast instead of the other way around. Nobody in mainstream publishing has written about that, nor will they because they don't *get it* and have a vested interest in making sure nobody else gets it either. I know it. Tracy knows it. I suspect you know it. But until we get the NY Times to write about it, this is a dead end. That's probably the right answer for wikipedia given the mission but it just doesn't feel right. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us see what we can do about this - what sources do you think "you" would give weight to. Then let me see what I can do with them - and find any extras etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 18:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the only people who've written about this work only note that it was print-gone-to-podcast and all of them are bloggers, wikis, goodreads, library things, and other non-reliable sources. I've been scouring the web for anything referencing this as one of the *first* podcast novels that started as print, but it's below the radar. I can't find anyway to validate that claim. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: KEEP WRITING AND BLOGGING AND CHECKING BACK / " we old schoolers { SCHOLARS ha! see even spell check won't let us alone / SEE BELOW: { said it 2X becus' it important u do not stop } DON'T GIVE UP just keep flagging it }  JSo9-10 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: DON'T GIVE UP just keep flagging it { the paragraph / notable / SOURCE / whatever } and occasionally { THREATEN to merge +/~ delete it [ BUT DO NOT FOLLOW through on the THREAT ] } this seems to motivate toughs of us part time / wan-a-bee editors to fix things { that we have a huge interest in +/~ a great way to direct / motivate PAID EDITORS TO FIX SELF INTEREST PAGES, some-of-us followers look to EN.WIKI FOR JUST THE tid bits that you can't just trust ( I heard this or that / is it true / check and see how long it survives AFTER A PAID EDITOR HEARS ABOUT IT ) } INTO FULL FLEDGED, good +/~ maybe great, ARTICLES.JSo9-10 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable

message: Why is the PW citation declared a dead link? because it's not needed? Nlowell 2010 (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I clicked it, it just takes it to a generic PW page. Could the link be missing a character at the end? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I click it it takes me to the review. I don't get it. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a PW subscriber? That may be the difference. It takes me to the subscription page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly because I'm logged into the PW database .. -.- .. ok this is impossible. This is an important work. It's a departure novel from a notable individual, it's one of the earliest Parsec Award winners, it represents a benchmark work in the evolution of mainstream media to new media models, but nobody who matters has written about it, so notability is not going to be established anytime soon. I give up. Nlowell 2010 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nlowell_2010  DON'T GIVE UP just keep flagging it { the paragraph / notable / SOURCE / whatever } and occasionally { THREATEN to merge +/~ delete it [ BUT DO NOT FOLLOW through on the THREAT ] }  this seems to motivate toughs of us part time / wan-a-bee editors to fix things { that we have a huge interest in +/~ a great way to direct / motivate PAID EDITORS TO FIX SELF INTEREST PAGES, some-of-us followers look to EN.WIKI FOR JUST THE tid bits that you can't just trust ( I heard this or that / is it true / check and see how long it survives AFTER A PAID EDITOR HEARS ABOUT IT  ) } INTO FULL FLEDGED, good +/~ maybe great, ARTICLES. JSo9-10 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: PW reference