Talk:Tommy Thumb's Song Book

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature 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.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

The introduction of the article seems to be biased and not backed up by a source. The author seems to be making a claim about the book that is not fact or well founded in sources. For example, author says that the books are still "well known" but i'm not sure how that is. Further, the sources that are available are extremely limited (there are only two, and in fact seem very biased themselves. The content section is very limited and could use some expansion. The article does not seem to be fully developed and only skims the surface of this topic. The viewpoint that this book is still well known and important seems to be very overrepresented and not backed up with viable sources. I would suggest that the author do some more in depth research on the topic and remove some of his opinions on the relevance and popularity of the book. I think the article could also benefit from a more extensive and varied body of sources. Sierrawesthem (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]