Talk:The Redemption of Althalus

Fair use rationale for Image:DavidEddings TheRedemptionOfAlthalus.jpg
Image:DavidEddings TheRedemptionOfAlthalus.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 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Althalus powerwords
Wasn't he taught from Deiwos book not dweia's? Dweias book was the knife remember

mi_lamber@hotmail.com

Yeah, they might have mixed it up because Dweia taught Althalus to use Deiwos' book, so I could understand if they switched it accidentally. Ahkaris (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing
I am leaving it up to those with the patience to actually put the sources.

Deikan Empire - Pages 5-7 of the Redemption of Althalus (tRoA) Civilized and Frotier lands - Pages 3-4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.153.176.2 (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

General style/cleanup
The article in general needs a good deal of cleanup - the introduction is fine, but the plot needs to be shortened/summarized much more, broken into shorter sections, and extensive grammar cleanup needs to happen. Additionally, the "who's who" and detailed universe info should probably be shortened or removed, since they're mostly not of general interest. I haven't read the book in three years, so I'm probably not the best person for the job - anyone want to volunteer? Lakmiseiru (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Is anyone else aware that this outline actually makes more sense than the book itself? I read to outline before i read the book, and I have to say that the book has some serious plot holes/causality issues. Is this outline truly descriptive if it's more consistent than the book it describes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.169.188.210 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since in two years nothing happened, I will try to do this - even though I haven't read the book myself. I will shorten the plot summary and delete the locations and characters. The article should be rather brief and informative, I think. --HawkS DisQ 20:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)