Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:07, 22 April 2022

Revision as of 04:07, 22 April 2022

Line 16:

===For non-fiction, too!===

This problem isn't limited to works of fiction, either; political books, documentaries, scholarly articles, and history books all have lots of content that might need to be summarized if the work qualifies for a Wikipedia article. However, for political books especially, the main idea should not be to summarize every point and argument made, or even the ones that stand out. By referencing reliable sources, critical review especially,{{efn|The reason that criticalCritical review is ideal here is because some shows are the subject of long-yet-trivial coverage. You can find, for example, lots of articles from respectable news outlets about episodes of ''[[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver]]''—but many turn out to be sensationalist recapping that just focuses on the eye-catching parts. Articles that contain real, critical review are more likely to be focused on the important topics, and not just the ones that will get the most clicks.}} editors can get an idea of what parts of the argument are most important, and allows for a minimalist argument summary that is still a valid and comprehensive reference for the reception section.

==Notes==