Talk:The Case for Impeachment

Irrelevant additions

[1] This addition totally does not belong here.

Certainly not as its own entire subsection.

It has nothing to do with this book.

And none of those cited sources mention this book.

And they are all bare-links to Amazon.com.

Just, no.

Sagecandor (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

They most certainly DO! They prove that The Case for Impeachment is a rather common title for books of this type. This is relevant because there are other books by that name. While I have no problem with an article on THIS book, it's not the only one out there with that exact title. It's important that we mention that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Do they specifically mention this particular book? Is it okay to use barelinks to Amazon.com as sources? Sagecandor (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

They specifically mention the TITLE, which is exactly same as this book. As proof of the very existence of these books with the exact same title, and may be a cause of confusion out there in the world? Yes. That's why II added (2017) to the title of the article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote regarding the 2006 book, since the authors have articles even though the book doesn't. Hopefully this will settle things a bit. Trivialist (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed the hatnote. Can be added back IFF and when there is an existing wiki article of the same name. There is not any other wiki article by this name right now. Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment at WP:RSN by Rhododendrites explains this perfectly: [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

"See also" section

As far as I know, "See also" sections should not display links that appear elsewhere in the article, including navigation templates. Should links appearing in Template:Trump presidency be removed? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer:I've removed all the ones that were dups to the template. Look better? Sagecandor (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Great ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Notable book per WP:NBOOK Criteria (1) and (5)

Notable book. Per WP:NBOOK Criteria number one (1) and (5).

(1). The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Namely, The Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Journal of Books, CounterPunch, The Hill, and CBC News.

(5). The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. Namely, Allan Lichtman.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Recentism tag

Disagree with "Recentism" tag. I'm aware of the concerns, thank you. As more sources come available over time, will add them to the article. In the meantime, the article is up to date. Sagecandor (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The recentism tag certainly applies, particularly when we see attempts to add images (or commentary) that have no relationship to the book itself. See WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. – S. Rich (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The commentary is by the author. About the subject of his book. In the article about his book. That is directly relevant. Anyways, how is it "recentism" ? You fail to explain this? Sagecandor (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Commentary by the author is fine if he is talking about the book (which would include his premises). Recentism is simply a message to editors to consider how recent events are related to the topic of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you for explaining yourself. I think you are trying to use {{recentism}} instead of {{current}}. Sagecandor (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. But "current" does not apply because this article is about the book, not the events surrounding the publication of the book. For more, see WP:Recentism. – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay I will do some trimming in size of the section per WP:Recentism. Sagecandor (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GAR -- pending

I've done a "failed" Good Article review, but have not posted the failed GAR template. Basically I'd like another editor to come on by and see if my eval is correct. If so, please comment. If not, I'll take steps to remove my GAR. – S. Rich (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

With consent of the nominator, the GAR is closed as failed. – S. Rich (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've got no problems with the close, thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2017 (UTC)