Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Sword of Shannara/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:36, 23 September 2008.

The Sword of Shannara

 * Nominator(s): User:the ed17
 * previous FAC (20:31, 31 August 2008)

Alright, I have addressed most of the concerns brought up during the previous FAC. I do not have the book anymore, as it is with a friend of mine and I can't get to it, but I should be able to remember most/all of the details that will be needed for the plot summary if I need to change it. Thanks for your comments, for as long as you tell me what needs to be done (I.e. not Expand plot, but instead Expand x sentence in y section) I'll be able to improve the article, regardless if it makes it through this FAC. Cheers!  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  02:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I notified Sunsetsunrise about this FAC, as he appeared to be willing to help with getting this to FA in the previous FAC. Cheers,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Sorry, still not ready IMO. Some significant issues throughout. The first one that jumps out at you is the regular use of large chunks of quote (eg. in the background section). These detract from the writing, making it harder to read, and turn the article into a stack of quotes rather than something written based on sources. As noted before, any further shortening of the plot summary section would be good. The major themes section is surely too short, and I believe much more can be said (in your own words!) about it. Look at some other novel FAs. I don't like the idea of having a section header be a question ("Derived from Lord of the Rings?") and would suggest that be retitled. In general, there is some significant content restructuring needed, IMO. Good luck. Giggy (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm working on the quotes. Does it look better so far?
 * It's getting there. IMO you don't need blockquotes and it would be better if there were none (not to say that would solve every problem, but it's a starting point). Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Umph. I'll work on it... I don't have the time this morning to do anything major, but I'll work on them, I promise.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I got one. I'm going to try to integrate the quotes into the major themes section later (after class), but I would like to leave the first quote...look at it, its all about what he was thinking! Also, the Herbert quotes are very important, but I think that they would be too opinionated to be merged with the article...plus, no one can get to the actual article unless they pay 3.95 to the Times...-_-...(I only got to it through something my school pays for)...so quotes might be best...  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  13:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, take a look. 4 block quotes left (2 from one source, Herbert)...I only removed the block quotes and shortened most of the others because I don't want to have problems with POV...if there is/are one/two quotes that can be integrated, can you tell me which ones or help me un-quote them? Thanks,  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added another theme to the 'Major Themes' section, and I may be able to move some of the content from the 'Background' section there too if it is still too short.
 * I'm somewhat concern that you needed a poke here to make you add another "major" theme. Is that section complete/comprehensive? (And the quoting issue there.) Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe so. The main reason for writing Sword for Brooks was just because he had to respond to LotR...he didn't write it for any theme. As he went along, it became the post-halocaust one....when you said that about the theme, I went hunting through pages on his website, and found that environmental theme buried. If there is another theme, he hasn't said it.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Section was renamed "Similarities between Sword and The Lord of the Rings"... Better, or too long, or...?  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably OK. Giggy (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony  (talk)  11:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose—Not well-written throughout. The opening demonstrates this.
 * Second sentence: "It is the first of three books that are a part of the Original Shannara Trilogy, with the other two being The Elfstones of Shannara and The Wishsong of Shannara." Clumsy and ungrammatical. "The first book of the Original Shannara Trilogy, it was followed by The Elfstones of Shannara and The Wishsong of Shannara."
 * Changed to your version.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed some of the extreme overlinking in the lead. Please audit throughout for this.
 * I went through and did this, but look at where some of the links go! 1977 is linked because it goes to 1977 in literature, which Sword is a part of. Also, sleep goes to Druid sleep, which is some form of suspended animation, if I remember right...Basically, it allows the Druids to live longer.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings and historical adventure fiction, Brooks began writing the novel in 1967. He finished it seven years later; after being accepted for publication by Ballantine Books, it was used to launch the company's Del Rey Books imprint." Sentence boundary in the wrong place. What is "imprint"? A link is not good enough; please use a simpler word or briefly gloss the term.
 * Changed to "subsidiary". 15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Startitis disease: "becoming the" --> "and was".
 * Umm what does this mean? Sorry.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  15:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Startitis: Just about everthing could be expressed as "becoming" in a narrative section—"Upon its release, The Sword of Shannara became a major success, becoming the first fantasy paperback to appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Its success began to provide a major boost to the commercial expansion of the fantasy genre." So why not make it straight and simple: "Upon its release, The Sword of Shannara was a major success and the first fantasy paperback to appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Its success provided a major boost to the commercial expansion of the fantasy genre."
 * Ohh, I get it. I'll take a look.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  13:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of additions and improvements (diff), but needs attention to the general prose. Here are more random shots:
 * "much critical derision"—Remove "much", since "derision" is very strong already (too strong?). And more hype in the same sentence: "for being overly derivative" (remove "overly", since derivative work is up for criticism). Try to avoid ", with" as a connector: "... Rings: some critics accused him ...". Unclear logic in the last clause. Try "; others have regarded this more favourably, saying that all new writers follow in the ...". I hope these critics are cited in the body of the article, by at least one representative source.
 * done and yes, there are about 4 sources for that, and 8 sources in the section it comes from (Similarities between Sword and The Lord of the Rings"). =) That is not a weasel sentence!!! ;D  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  05:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FAC instructions regarding avoiding the use of graphics. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More work needed on the miro-aspects of the text—a job for a new editor who's good with words (not that you're not that, but you're too close to it). Tony  (talk)  04:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * =D I'm pretty good with words when I'm writing for fun/something I like...my problem is when I write stuff here or for a research paper. =/ (too many semi-colons, for one.) I'll put in a request at GoCE.  -talk- the_ed17  -contribs-  17:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS Overciting: I see refs 4, 4, 4, 4 at the end of four successive sentences: this is visually obstructive, like overlinking, and quite unnecessary. As long as the individual sentences are not each contentious or the passage much longer and more complex, just one [4] at the end of it is sufficient. Tony  (talk)  04:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed most of the links. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  11:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.