Template:Book Marks/doc

Purpose

This template standardizes the language used to describe review aggregation data from Book Marks. It automates prose generation for review summaries, ensuring grammatical correctness, consistency, and flexibility across articles discussing critical reception.

The template minimizes repetitive editing, reduces errors, and enhances readability by formatting review data dynamically based on the input.

Benefits

Consistency:

• Ensures all articles referencing Book Marks follow a uniform style.

Flexibility:

• Dynamically adjusts language to fit any combination of review data.

Accuracy:

• Automates grammar and logic, reducing manual errors.

Scalability:

• Can be integrated into numerous articles, streamlining updates when formatting changes.

Usage

Use this template to introduce Book Marks review data in Critical reception sections of book articles with the following syntax:

• {{Book Marks|generateSummary|total_reviews=|rave=|positive=|m=|pan=|consensus=}

Parameters

1. consensus (required). Indicates the consensus rating. Valid values are: {"Rave", "Positive", "Mixed", "Pan"}
2. total_reviews (required): Total number of reviews aggregated by Book Marks. Must be a positive integer greater than or equal to 5.
3. rave, positive, m, and pan: Specify the number of each type of review. Use a non-negative integer for each. Zero values may be omitted or explicitly set as 0.

Dynamic grammar adjustments

The template provides flexibility in grammar and flow based on the number of types of reviews

Case 1: Singular review type
Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 35 "rave" reviews.

Case 2: Two review types
Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 20 "rave" and 15 "pan" reviews.

Case 3: Three review types
Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 20 "rave", 5 "positive", and 10 "pan" reviews.

Case 4: All review types
Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 16 "rave", 8 "positive", 8 "mixed", and 3 "pan" reviews.

Case 5: implied zero
Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 25 "rave", 8 "mixed", and 2 "pan" reviews.

Error handling

The template ensures that negative integers aren't accidentally used by the editor as part of its error handling.

Error 1: Negative review counts
Error: All inputs must be non-negative integers.

It also ensures that the sum of all reviews equals total_reviews.

Error 2: Mismatched totals
Error: Review counts do not sum to total.

Normally, Book Marks needs to be at least slightly statistically significant, so a minimum of 5 reviews for total_reviews is required.

Error 3: Too few reviews
Error: There must be at least 5 total reviews.

Example(s)

Example 1: Prose integration

The novel was well-received by critics, like her first three novels.

Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Positive" consensus rating based on 35 independent third-party assessments, including 16 "rave", 8 "positive", 8 "mixed", and 3 "pan" reviews.

Example 2: Standalone sentence

Per Book Marks, a website that aggregates critical reviews for literature from mainstream critics, the book received an overall "Rave" consensus rating based on 20 independent third-party assessments, including 20 "rave" reviews.