Talk:Underland (book)

No synopsis, excessive reviews

This is one of the most remarkable articles I've seen in a while, if only because of the juxtaposition between the high standard of editing and complete lack of useful information. There are reams of tables of reviews and other superfluous material, but no synopsis - not even a single sentence. This is an article that somehow manages to contain 108 references and a 34 item 'further reading' list without saying anything about the actual subject of the article. The whole thing reads like a postmodern parody. I'm in awe. Retinalsummer (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, came here to say the same thing, an utterly bizarre article. So I was just bold and removed almost all of it. I don't know what that was, publishers promotional work, or someone cultivating a position? No idea. It is all gone, and I provided a basic description of the book, which is much more likely why someone would be landing on the article than reading about the 42 prizes it was nominated for. SFC9394 (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)