The review desk acts as a holding pen for submissions to give feedback and try to find ways to improve and polish them, and to collect sets of related pieces. The publication of book reviews is at the ultimate discretion of the Signpost's editors-in-chief, Andreas Kolbe and Pete Forsyth. Do you have a book review you'd like to write or propose to publish? If so please read and understand the submission guidelines below, then create a new submission in the submissions column below with the title of the book and some general impressions which you would like to (or already have) expanded into a full review.
Would you like to publish an review you've already written? Do the same as you would with a new proposal, but be sure to include a link to the review in your submission. Note that the Signpost emphasizes recently published literature. If you are unsure whether or not your essay is topical enough or recent enough for publication, the best thing to do is to submit a proposal and wait for feedback from our editor(s)-in-chief.
Would you like to comment on essays and ideas currently under consideration? Feel free to do so; this process is open to the community at large. While submissions that take strong positions on important issues are welcome, we ask that comments be kept constructive. If you are unclear on any of the process or have questions related thereto, feel free to reach out to us through Feedback.
If you are ready to submit a proposal you may use the button below to do so.
Readership. Reviews should be written with The Signpost audience in mind—Wikipedians and others with an active interest in Wikipedia and similar projects—but should be accessible to general readers as well. For books not directly related to Wikipedia, show how the subject is relevant to Signpost readers by drawing connections between the topic and the perspectives of its author, on the one hand, and the concerns of Wikipedians, on the other.
Writing style. This is a matter for individual writers. Naturally, our readers enjoy a crisp, direct, engaging style. A good review typically presents both commentary and a summary of the book's content, and does not necessarily give equal attention to all parts of the book. Most reviews clarify the reviewer's attitude to the book at or soon after the start. Readers like either tension or enthusiasm, as long as there is enough formality in the review to build its authority.
Genre. A book review is a different genre from a Wikipedia article, and indeed from the rest of The Signpost. There is less emphasis on citations (usually there are no page references), and as an opinion piece it is less bound to the project's policies on neutrality, verification and original research. Nevertheless, please remember that the review will be very public, and should be in good faith even when manifestly critical of the subject.
Word length. Reviewers should use their writer's judgment. While there is no set length, between 600 and 1200 words is a rule of thumb. A review much shorter than 600 words risks not seriously engaging with the book beyond a mere summary; a text much longer than 1200 words may not hold readers' attention to the end.
Opening format. "Book review" is already included in the template, so it is best to avoid the words "Book review" or "Review of" in your own title. Beneath this, please include the publisher's name (short or long version), the number of pages, the ISBN number, and the month of publication (e.g., "Chicago University Press, 203 pp., ISBN 944-0-7558-9809-7, May 2010").
Images. Book-cover images are almost always copyrighted, and because The Signpost is in WP space, fair use media are not permitted. The judicious use of free media is encouraged.
