Wikipedia:Peer review/The Sword of Shannara/archive1

===The Sword of Shannara===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm thinking about nominating it to be a Featured Article, but I would like to make sure that it is at that point...I don't want it to fail horribly. =) So basically I'm asking for people to read through the article and tell me A) What is wrong with it and B) If it has a chance at WP:FAC.

Thank you very much for your time!  the_ed 17  21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/The Sword of Shannara/archive1.

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * Per the MOS, you don't want to use the curly quotes, use block quotes instead.
 * ✅  the_ed 17  18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What are the two ISBNs as footnotes supposed to show?
 * What ISBNs as footnotes?  the_ed 17  18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the ISBN's for the trade paperback edition and hardback edition: "In 1977, The Sword of Shannara was simultaneously released as a trade paperback[8] by Ballantine Books and hardback[9] by Random House.[10][11]" (8*9 are the ISBN's.) I think that's right..I didn't put those in there. (I think DanDs did.)  the_ed 17  18:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.alitheia.org/shannarafiles/index2.php
 * Terry Brooks' official site lists it under "Terry Brooks Dedications"--if the information there was wrong, then it wouldn't be there...if I had found a different source, I would've used it.  the_ed 17  18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  the_ed 17  18:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
 * Per MOS:QUOTE block quotes should only be used for quotations that are at least four lines long. On my monitor only one is even three lines long.
 * What would you suggest I do with them?  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just put them into the article as regular quotes: Brooks said "blah blah blah". Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy cow, I thought you meant that quotes that are longer than four lines must be normal...and on my screen only two are less--one that is 2 lines, one that is 3; and I'm the 2 now...The three-line is needed, I think; the line directly following starts with Brooks has also commented......I think that the quote needs to be set apart.  the_ed  17  02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you really need three references that the book was published in hardback??? ... hardback[9] by Random House.[10][11]
 * [10] and [11] are the two different ISBN numbers.  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WHy not put all of this into one footnote? The paperback ISBN is 123... and the hardback ISBN is 456... ? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I was wrong. =) [8] and [9] are the ISBN's. [10] and [11] are the hardback references.  the_ed 17  02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MOS use thumb to set image widths so reader preferences take over. I also wonder if six fair use images is not a bit much - see Non-free content criteria
 * ✅ and 3 images illustrate the plot; 2 are two different covers; 1 illustrates all of the characters...I think it's alright...  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Write the plot summary and article from an out of universe perspective - see WP:IN-U. I also have read that plot sumamries are supposed to be no more than 900 words - this seems a bit long.
 * I'll try to rewrite it...may need some help...but as for the word count, this is a long (726 pgs.) book with a lot going on in many different settings...it would be far and beyond in-universe if it were any shorter! No one would understand a thing!  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Provide context for the reader, I have not read this book and the character list tells me nothing about the characters (yes, many are linked, but a phrase or two here would help)
 * Will work on.  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I/can I link these mini-summaries (i.e.
 * Shea Ohmsford, the protagonist, Flick's adopted brother and the decendant of Jerle Shannara. Shea must find an ancient magical sword, the Sword of Shannara, and use it to destroy the antagonist, the Warlock Lord.
 * -or-
 * ''Shea Ohmsford, the protagonist, Flick's adopted brother and the decendant of Jerle Shannara. Shea must find an ancient magical sword, the Sword of Shannara, and use it to destroy the antagonist, the Warlock Lord.
 * ✅ unless those links are needed.  the_ed 17  03:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would try to use independent third party sources more - Major themes is all Brooks, what do others say about the themes? For a book that is as disparaged by some as this one is, only quoting the author is very POV.
 * I line in a town of maybe 5,000, and my local county library has no old magazines (they keep them for only a year due to a lack of space). My old high school's library has magazines from then--except they are magazines like People and National Geographic. -_- So for a book that came out in '77, I'll need help to change this...  the_ed 17  02:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!  the_ed 17  00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think I should nominate this artice for featured article status?  the_ed 17  02:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will preface my comments by saying that I do not generally weigh in on literature FACs, but I do not think this is ready. Model articles are useful and The Lord of the Rings is a FA (from June 2006, so standards have only gotten tighter for FAs since). A more recent novel FA is The General in His Labyrinth. A few points of comparison: ✅ This is not ready for FAC as I see it. A good thing to do is look at FAs that are models, read their FAC pages (linked from the talk) and read / follow some current FAC noms to get an idea of the issues that come up. This is a good article, but needs a lot of work to get to FA - can you get books via Inter Library Loan? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither has anywhere near as many fair use images as this does (LOTR has four - three are book covers, one is a Tolkien map, GIHL has the book cover)
 * The plot summaries of each book (counting LOTR as 3 books) are shorter, LOTR has no character section, GIHL has one but does not go into the level of detail, especially on minor characters
 * Both have many more references and cite many more idenpendent third party sources - compare the Themes in GIHL and the Themes here
 * added more.
 * Both have sections and information which this lacks.
 * Look at the parts of this article which are not Plot or Characters or the lead - it is quite short. Length is not an FA criterion, but comprehensiveness is.
 * Added quotes from Herbert.
 * PR is all suggestions, but in FAC requests are actionable (you must do them unless you can point to a valid reason why not).
 * Keeping the group portrait at a set pixel width will not pass FAC, it has to be thumb (infobox image is OK).
 * NFCC concerns (too many fair use images used primarily for decoration) will be a problem at FAC.
 * Not enough outside sources / refs will be a problem.
 * ✅ added more
 * Block quotes that are less than four lines will be a problem (although that depends on screen resolution too). Only the quote that starts I would set my adventure story in an imaginary world, a vast, sprawling, mythical world like that of Tolkien ... is four lines on my computer, all the others are two lines (and the second line is not full)
 * But on my computer....they are longer...
 * Refs that are essectially duplicates will be a problem (current refs 19, 20 and 21 could all be combined into "Shippey, Tom (2000). J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century. London: HarperCollins, 2001 paperback, 319-320."
 * No ISBNs for books will be a problem.
 * What missing ISBNs?
 * What missing ISBNs?