Talk:Master of the Game (novel)

Master of the Game (novel) was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 17, 2007	WikiProject peer review	Reviewed
June 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has had a peer review which is now archived.

GA fail

Fails on

(1a) Needs copyediting.
~~(1b) The last three sections are bulleted lists, not prose.~~
(1b) I'm not sure what purpose the "Historical references" section serves. Any of this information that is important should be mentioning when discussing the relevant plot or themes of the novel.
(2b) "Background" section makes no sense - "background" to what? What kind of "background"? I thought it was going to be background to the writing of the novel itself. There are no details here whatsoever. Moreover, we cannot take Sheldon's word on this issue. We need independent verification.
(3a) There are no sections on the "Themes" of the novel or the writing style used in the novel.
~~(3a) Try turning the "Awards and nominations" section into a "Reception" section and describe what critics said in paragraph form.~~
~~(3b) This page is almost entirely plot summary. The summary needs to be severely cut down. See WP:NOT#INFO.~~ Awadewit | talk 20:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A GA-nom??? This article, actually, has some factual inacccuracies, especially, the section covering the "Plot". I'll work to clean it up.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about a complete list of his novels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.160.162 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

I found this article rather difficult to get through, so I took a stab at cleaning it up some; unfortunately I am not familiar with the subject material, so I didn't want to start rearranging the whole article. It is, however, still in need of something. I would suggest that the order of information be rearranged (plot before publication, etc.) and that some of the redundant information, linkage, and prose be done away with. Gizzakk 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYT bestseller

The assessment that "the book debut[ed] at #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list, staying there for 11 weeks, and remaining on the list itself for 40 weeks..." is somewhat misleading. The book remained at #1 for only four weeks (this is my independent research), 9/12/82 to 10/3/82, but the grammar of the entry is bad and indicates it was #1 for 11 weeks. Whomever is in charge of this page could clean that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.14.115 (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source is worded the same way, that the novel was #1 for 11 weeks. Are you able to cite your research to the contrary here? Otherwise I can try a search at NYTimes.com and see what I find.— TAnthony^Talk 18:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC

Yes. I did that research some years ago, and keep the list up to date. I published it a few times In a few places, and now Wikipedia Itself has annual lists of NY Times Hardcover Bestsellers and these Include week by week results, so the info is here too. IDK if those lists were derived from mine or done independently.

The original cited source seems to be a Sidney Sheldon official website from his publisher or estate. It is not uncommon for such sites to exaggerate, repeat misinformation they get, or include softcover weeks at number 1 (data I don't have). Softcover sales tend to bounce with movie releases, mentions on tv and for other reasons. Apparently being number one drives sales because book buyers seem to have a herd mentality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.154.104 (talk) 10:31, March 11, 2015

OK I'm not sure how well-versed you are with sourcing and citations at Wikipedia so please excuse me if I'm telling you things you already know. I believe you and I'm sure your research is sound, but obviously your assurances as an editor and the Wikipedia lists themselves are not considered reliable sources. I do see, however, that The New York Times Fiction Best Sellers of 1982 list contains a single citation to the Hawes site, which has the week-by-week lists we need. I'll rewrite the copy and cite it with the proper lists. Thanks. — TAnthony^Talk 19:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done— TAnthony^Talk 23:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undertaking the extra effort on this.

You have correctly asserted that I don't know the protocols for establishing factual claims as being "reliable." That was not part of my objective, which was, to make and keep such a list from the start. I began the list in the 1980's, even before there was an Internet to do the work for me, with my ultimate hobbyist aim of actually collecting and reading all the number one books; my justifications being (1) that if they were number one, they were demonstrably interesting and worth while and (2) maybe I could figure out something about the way the world spins based on knowing what sells and what doesn't sell.

So I have my list and I have my books read and unread shelved, and I have background information about all that stuff, and I am working my way through as many novels as I can before I croak, and maybe it qualifies as reliable science and maybe it doesn't, but it works for me.

For all this effort, I have concluded little except that James Michener is unreadable gibberish that is largely repetitive to much better tales told by much better authors (compare "Space" to "The Right Stuff") and that James Patterson is way too readable, practically Dr. Suess level.

I also came across a guy named John Bear and he has a book out on the Times Best Sellers. http://www.amazon.com/Number-York-Times-Best-Seller/dp/0898154847 He is an interesting resource and at some point he will update his 1992 book. As luck would have it, I found a mistake in his book when I read it -- a title misidentified as fiction when it was non-fiction -- so he is due for an update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.9.201 (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]