Talk:Fancies Versus Fads

A fact from Fancies Versus Fads appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 October 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in Fancies Versus Fads, G. K. Chesterton "knocks all our preconceived notions in the scrap heap, and then tells us that there is no scrap heap"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/October. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fancies Versus Fads.

Wikipedia

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reception

Some notes, per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Question about the notability of several books

Fancies Versus Fads is considered one of the best collections of essays by Chesterton. Is it? Sweeping claim but appears to be just the author's opinion and not necessarily the author speaking authoritarily about a group of scholars. I.e., who considers it the best? Chesterton scholars? Contemporaneous reviewers? Etc. So best to add attribution here, "according to Dale Ahlquist" or "Chesterton Society President Dale Ahlquist says".
There's still room to be syncretic without becoming original research. For example, you can use the "-+" (mixed) ratings listed in Book Review Digest to say: FVF received mixed reviews from the Freeman, the New Statesman, the NY Tribune, and the Spectator, who praised X[specific citations] and questioned Y[specific citations]. The Outlook praised A while The Times Literary Supplement thought it was a detractor. Etc. Otherwise it can just appear as a series of "X said" text or a version of proseline.

czar 04:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

As he was English, please use dmy dates. (Also of course British English, although outside of quotes, which of course should be left as written, I don't see any points of difference as yet). Thanks PamD 05:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Chapters"?

Perhaps "Essays", or "Contents", might be better section title? PamD 05:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 12:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that in Fancies Versus Fads, G. K. Chesterton "knocks all our preconceived notions in the scrap heap, and then tells us that there is no scrap heap"? Source: St. Louis Globe-Democrat review (a quote from the source)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/KHHZ

Moved to mainspace by BeanieFan11 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fancies Versus Fads; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Article created 14 September. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ is missing. Once done this will be ready. Thriley (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thriley: QPQ done. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - All good. Thriley (talk) 05:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]