This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to expatriates in Uruguay. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.UruguayWikipedia:WikiProject UruguayTemplate:WikiProject UruguayUruguay articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I agree that this claim should come in in one way or another, but I'd argue that to label a work as "important" without context or explictly sourcing the claim is the very definition of peacocking per the Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. (Bob Dylan is an important musician, but there's no need to say, "Bob Dylan is an important musician" when we can cite the claim to someone instead, or just give evidence of his influence). Can we find a source like "Professor Diego Jones said 'it is an important work that set the standard for all books to come'", or other evidence of its impact? Then we can either put the "important" in quotations, or we can just drop the word entirely and give evidence of its impact that will demonstrate its importance. I'll leave it in peace for now, though. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
