Talk:Fodor's
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Cleaned up[edit]
I did a bit of cleaning and rearranging, hopefully it looks good to everybody else. The "today" heading was removed because I didn't think the section was big enough or needed to stand on its own. I wish there were more references/resources than the publishing sites themselves, but I couldn't find much on the internet. Anyway, I removed the cleanup tag because things seem decent enough now. :) Foofy 10:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- PS: Fodors LLC is not a typo, it has no apostrophe for some reason, not sure why. Foofy 10:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Article quality[edit]
The Fodor's article raises issues. What are the criteria behind the comment "first relatively professional producer"? John Murray's Red Guides, Karl Baedeker's Guides and Hachette's Guides Bleu were highly professional from their first appearances in the nineteenth century. The comment about Rome and Italians, out of context, tells us nothing about local people and culture but looks xenophobic. I think the claim about being the largest publisher of travel information is contentious: broadcast and online providers could claim to be much bigger. Westwood43 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)