Talk:The Golem's Eye

Covers!
The covers are a lot less scary in Canada it's also mor cartoony for younger readers eye suspect pun intended anyway I think we should have that picture. Jamhaw 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
 * I meant we should have it as well while I don't care which is in the box I would like it if both of them were there. Jamhaw 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
 * We should have a history section because most of these boooks in the genre are unrealistic but in these the English Civil War happened like in real life and the Holy Roman Empire was still around till 1878.

crazy
The article is sooo biased. The summary is incomplete too.

Strange Synopsis
I've deleted the very weried plot summery as it is bascially just review/essay that has no reason to be here Phillipmorantking 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bartimaeus 2.jpg
Image:Bartimaeus 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bartimaeus two.jpg
Image:Bartimaeus two.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Golemseye.jpg
The image File:Golemseye.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

entire article reads like Junior HS book report
This is not an encyclopedic article. A scholarly article (considering the likely junior audience), would include things like:


 * 1a) a concise summary of what this book is about (i.e. fiction, fantasy, alternate reality, cartoon, witchcraft, wizardry, whatever) - this is NOT a summary of the plot;
 * 1b) a concise summary of what the series is about
 * 1c) how this book integrates with the rest of the series;
 * 2) the major characters and their role in the plot;
 * 3) the sociological and epistemological (look it up) themes it plays on;
 * 4) the setting of the book (when - future, past, present), where (earth, heaven, some fantasy place), and the kind of situation the characters find themselves in (facing danger, adventuring, leading ordinary lives, etc);
 * 5) what does the title of the book refer to;
 * 6) a short description of what the author is known for, anything else he's written, his general style, etc;
 * 7) a summary of the critiques in any available commercial book reviews;
 * 8) contrast and compare with other books with related themes

These might just be the beginning. And of course, heed the [plot] tag: the plot summary need be no longer than say, 3-4 modest paragraphs (currently 11).Sbalfour (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I may have inadvertently contributed to the clutter of this article, by adding lists of characters and magical spells, objects and places. Unless they are explicitly mentioned in the text, they should not be listed. And of course, the text (plot) should be razed of place, event and character details, so obviate a large portion of the list items.Sbalfour (talk) 01:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

plot summary section
I've cut down the summary by about 25% by omitting trivia from Kitty's reverie about her childhood. The significant thing there wasn't the numbers associated with her fines, but what impact being assaulted and her friend nearly killed by a magician over an accident had on her attitude toward the ruling class (magicians), and her motivation to join the resistance. Again, a JHS-ish summary that fails completely to note the important points. The purpose of Kitty's reverie is to re-assess a value judgement made long ago for an emotional reason, and determine whether the danger, including arrest and imprisonment, or even death, of remaining in the resistance is outweighted by adherance to principles she is now coming to doubt.

The entire summary is rote regurgitation, and worthless - it doesn't tell us what matters. It can be cut down another half or two-thirds, or even eliminated. A professional writer or literary reviewer needs to redraft this article.Sbalfour (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is essentially a list of names and a plot summary, with no sources or citations whatsoever. Without attribution, the summary is ostensibly original research, which is completely invalid in the encyclopedia. That said, my dibble-dabble factual edits have hardly improved the situation. The plot is not meant to be a condensation or extraction of significant events replete with minute details woven together with narrative, but rather a meta-description of what the book is about, an abstraction borne of analysis and synthesis, followed by exposition. See the Harry Potter article (which earned a GA rating) for the proper idea. The whole article can be scrapped, though article blanking is vandalism per se.

The plot section has received a maintenance tag for. Unreferenced content may not be inserted into or retained in the encyclopedia. The content has been challenged by placement of the tag, and it will be removed within a short time, as the tag specifies, unless some editor can supply references. The references must of course be as comprehensive and detailed as the text they support. One cannot augment the references with a reading knowledge of the book - that's original research WP:NOR. If only a part of the text can be derived from the references, only that part can be retained. References cannot be newspaper articles, magazines (other than scholarly journals), blurbs in the front of mass market books, promotional websites, blogs, book reviews on Amazon.com or other marketing websites WP:RS. Plausable sources might be The School Library Journal, [//hcl.harvard.edu/harvardreview/ The Harvard Review Online] or start with Boatwright Memorial Library Scholarly Book Review Sources. The New York Times Book Review is a quasi-scholarly source, and might be acceptable for some things. However, I suspect that the existing text is made up, and can't be derived from any published source. That means in any case it must be deleted, and a fresh start taken. Prove me wrong, and save the work.

Generally, see WP:How to write a plot summary and WP:WikiProject Books for how to structure this section and the article as a whole. If you're not a seasoned writer or reviewer, external sources like Writer's Digest: How to write a synopsis is a good place to learn.Sbalfour (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I finally decided to be bold, and assert scholarship; this section is in-universe; for example: "Nathaniel is apprenticed to Minister of Internal Security Jessica Whitwell". Cite me the history book (real world) that names Jessica Whitwell, which country she is minister for, names her understudy Nathaniel, and describes them both as magicians with paranormal powers. The text as it stands is intolerable.Sbalfour (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sections Principal characters, List of Magical whatevers
I contributed substantially to these, and regret it. As I edit other A, GA and FA class articles on books, I increasingly recognize that these kinds of "no-effort" list sections don't belong in scholarly articles. They can and have become, a kind of "me, too" thing: each person who adds an item 'one-ups' all the other persons who didn't think of it. They aren't scholarship, and don't belong in the article. I've just blanked one section, and risked administrator sanction. I'm not going to blank these, too, though, to focus on what's important in this article, these should go. Somebody help me. Sbalfour (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)