This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The summary of the book's content is huge: many times bigger than it needs to be. About 600 words is a guideline for the size of a summary. The tone of the whole article fails to make clear what is summarised from the book and what is neutral commentary: it seems at points as though Wikipedia is endorsing the content of the book. Since the article is about the book, the Background section should state the background of the book's writing and publication, not the background of the topic of propaganda. The Further reading section is also hugely excessive: it seems as though books have been chosen for their relevance to the topic of propaganda, not the topic that this article is about. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
