Talk:Lucy Mangan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lucy Mangan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160508182935/http://www.sandiegobookreview.com/inside-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory/ to http://www.sandiegobookreview.com/inside-charlie-and-the-chocolate-factory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Tone

This page reads unencyclopaedic and perhaps draws heavily on promotion-oriented material. What is the relevance of the reviews in the 'Books' section? Would changing the title of this section to 'Reception' be enough to make the article encyclopaedic in tone? Thanks. Butterflyedition (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The reviews read like PR puffery. There's no point in quoting a single positive review unless it can be established that it's typical. LM is basically just one of the Graun's Oxbridge female columnists who bangs on about identity politics while reviewing downmarket movies and TV. She's hardly a notable author. --Ef80 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

While I have sympathy for Butterflyedition's concerns, I'm not sure what Ef80's comment does except express distaste for the subject which is a matter of personal taste and not really on-topic here. The "books" section is somewhat redundant given the "works" section, which should probably be renamed "bibliography". I agree that the quotations from the reviews are overdone and mostly uninformative in their rather generic praise. If we want a "reception" section it should be less quote based and include a mix of views. We could just say something like "Her books were released to generally positive reviews from publications such as (list of names with the review as a reference for each)" and then extend that sentence to include negative reviews if there were any notable ones. Information about how the books did on the best sellers lists or any awards won would also be nice. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you, although I'm not sure the article needs reviews at all given the relative unimportance of these works in LM's career. As I said, she's basically a Guardian columnist. I don't have 'distaste' for her, but she is something of a Graun stereotype - female, early 40s, public school and Oxbridge, desperately woke. See Marina Hyde and Zoe Williams. --Ef80 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Belatedly: since the tone for the other sections of the article works, I used a section-level tag for § Books instead. Then, I tagged the entire article as needing sources by those other than Mangan. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)