Talk:Publishers Weekly/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Fair use rationale for Image:Pwtiny.gif
Image:Pwtiny.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:2001pw.gif
Image:2001pw.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone subscribed to Publisher's Weekly?
Hey, I was working on getting Halo: Contact Harvest up to FA-class, and the only thing its really missing is reviews. I've been scouring the web, not finding much, but I think Publisher's Weekly has one archived on their site; the issue is, I can't read it. Does someone subscribe to the magazine who can fetch the review? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How biased are the reviews?
I see lots of PW reviews on dustjackets and am wondering if they write only positive reviews. Imagine Reason (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
- PW in the past (I haven't seen a copy for years) wouldn't do killer reviews, but if they were unenthusiastic about a book it showed. A bad review from them was tepid rather than acerbic. Dorothy Parker's famous putdown of Winnie the Pooh ("Tonstant Weader fwowed up") would never have been printed in PW (quite apart from the fact that it was simply wrong. Constant Reader threw up a lot because Constant Reader was usually drunk.)
108.1.117.46 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of this article is taken directly from Publishersweekly.com
I do not know about the rest of the article, but the paragraph beginning "Sybil Steinberg, whose star rose ...." is directly copied from the Publisher's Weekly site's "About Us" section. This sections needs to be either put into quotations and properly quoted or removed immediately. Paraphrasing is fine on Wikipedia, but direct quotes without citations is plagiarism. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposal for Major Edits to This Page
First, disclosure: I have been hired by Publishers Weekly, which is now my client. As part of my responsibilities handling publicity, they have asked me to edit the Publishers Weekly article on their behalf.
I initially added the Book Reviews section a few years ago, in 2013, having paraphrased the material based on the Publishers Weekly "About Us."[1] It seems that the Wikipedia article then changed some more, with direct copypaste happening. See Talk note from 2ReinreB2. The entire section was then removed.
There are some inaccuracies that might be easy to fix, such as the editorial director Michael Coffey retired.[2] Publishers Weekly also has a new logo; judging from the homepage, this appears to be an old one. [3]
I propose some major edits based on the information in the Publishers Weekly "About Us" article, which has been updated, and in order to bring the article up to snuff within WikiProject Magazines. The first major edit I propose would be to revise the Book Reviews section according to Wikipedia guidelines and standards and then reinstate it. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Revised Book Reviews Section Added
I revised the Book Reviews section and added it back in. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Publishers Weekly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312010952/http://wiredforbooks.org/johnbaker/ to http://wiredforbooks.org/johnbaker/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821121853/http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/melcher.html to http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/melcher.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312010952/http://wiredforbooks.org/johnbaker/ to http://wiredforbooks.org/johnbaker/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022170624/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6085 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/6085
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Name change?
When did the The Publishers' Weekly (with an apostrophe) change its name to Publishers Weekly (without an apostrophe)? The fourth paragraph of the lead switches between the two. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)