This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The new image is acceptable - it is the actual book cover, but perhaps less controversial than the 1994 book cover. How exactly does one "cite" a book summary other than the book itself?
aelfwyne19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
My reason for replacing the image had nothing to do with the previous image being "controversial"; first-edition covers are preferred for use in articles if they are available (see the WikiProject Novels' Article Template). It's not the book summary that really needs references/citations, but the other parts, like the lead section and the stuff about the controversy caused by the book. -- SilentAriatalk23:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Contested prod with no explanation. Redirect to author's page reverted by the same editor, also with no explanation. Article has had no references for almost five years. It fails most of the notability criteria for books, the only possible exception being the fifth, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." I don't think that history has had sufficient time to judge Anne Rice's historical significance yet, so including this on that basis alone is premature. FWIW, I'm a fan of Rice but don't think this meets notability. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}