This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys 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.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games 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.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
While I think the book is notable, and the sources show significant coverage of the book, I have noticed that there's a lack of criticism of the book within the article. This is why I tagged that for NPOV. MarioJump83!05:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MarioJump83: I'm the page creator, so I'm a bit biased, but I disagree. The reception section covers both positives and criticisms critics had with the book. I do agree that the opening paragraph in the rec. section could be expanded with criticisms, but I don't think that qualifies as a big enough reason to dispute its neutrality. If you have any other reason to dispute the neutrality, please let me know so I can work on it. Cheers, IanTEB (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
