Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Farseer trilogy/archive1

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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2022 [1].

Farseer trilogy

Nominator(s): Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93, 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well-known fantasy series from the 1990s: to place in context, it was published a year before A Game of Thrones. Robin Hobb's style is quite different from GRRM's, and we hope readers find this article interesting. It went through a GAN earlier this year, and after an expansion, a recent PR. We think we've covered the scholarly sources and look forward to feedback. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for initiating this. Courtesy pings to @Mike Christe and SandyGeorgia:, who left valuable comments at PR. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC) repinging Mike Christie, because of the typo. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am ridiculously swamped so may not be able to participate in the FAC, but I reviewed the article at PR as a person with no prior knowledge of the topic, and am quite satisfied (that is, I count as independent review, and would be a likely support after others have gone through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that others have also been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

I participated at the PR and have just read through again, finding only two more minor things to comment on:

“Galen proceeds to telepathically torture Fitz and blunt his ability to use the Skill, later revealed to be at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal.” I think the syntax here doesn’t correctly say what it is that is later revealed; it’s Galen’s behaviour but as written it says it’s the Skill. Something like “ Galen proceeds to telepathically torture Fitz and blunt his ability to use the Skill. He is later revealed to have done so at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal.” would work, but perhaps there are smoother ways to phrase this.
Changed to "his actions are later revealed to have been at the behest of Fitz's uncle Prince Regal". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s one use of “Six Duchies novels” and several of “Elderlings novels” or related phrases; if they both refer to all five series, I would be consistent about which to use, and make sure the reader is clear that the term applies to all series.
"Six Duchies" usually refers to 3 of the 5 series, but looking again, it wasn't necessary so I've removed it. The source was The Telegraph, whose review was only about those 3 series, but the specific sentence I've quoted seems to be a broader statement of consensus. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Pass. Sources are reliable, and I can see no formatting issues. Links all work. Parameters in cite templates are used consistently. You might consider adding either archive links or access dates or both for the purely web sources such as FNs 1, 90-91, and perhaps the Tor.com citations, but that's not a requirement for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't think you need those citations in the lead as the facts are cited in the body
I agree they're not strictly needed, but for quotes I've personally always liked to keep them. If it's a big problem for you I would reconsider. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the MoS: "The reader must be able to determine the source of any quotation, at the very least via a footnote. The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Returning to Buckkeep, the capital of the Six duchies" - shouldn't there be a capital D on Duchies?
There should. Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Regal bears similarities to Mordred, and Chade, to Merlin" - comma not needed after Chade
Removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Scholar Geoffrey Elliot describes the setting of the Elderlings books" - this is the first mention of the "Elderlings books" - does that simply mean the trilogy being discussed? A wider set of books? Or something else entirely?
It refers to the shared setting used by five series by the same author. I've added a sentence in "setting", at the risk of slight repetition. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude. I believe I've addressed your concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"The Farseer Trilogy". Why the upper case T?
Which T? The T in "Trilogy" is capitalized by the sources as I recall, I just checked Elliot 2006 [2] for instance. The T in "The" basically is an article title issue that I haven't really considered, if there's a reason to move it to "Farseer Trilogy" I'm not personally opposed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current article title at least matches the cover in the infobox (see the bottom). If we want to go by the first edition, the title was "The Farseer" (no trilogy) in the US and both "Farseer" and "The Farseer Trilogy" in the UK. I don't think there's a clear choice between those options, as the UK edition was released first in 2 out of the 3 books, and the US in 1/3. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My typo. To clarify: 1. Does a clear consensus of the high-quality reliable sources use an upper case T for "trilogy"? 2. I don't see that the arguments presented so far override MOS:THETITLE.

Yes, I believe there is. I have seen The Farseer Trilogy often, and just Farseer occasionally, but rarely if ever Farseer trilogy. When the former is used, the "the" is always present. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, it would be. As no one would refer to, say "The anniversary of Battle of Calais". Yet Battle of Calais is the name of the article, per MOS:THETITLE.

Re T/trilogy, any chance of an actual numerical summary of (just) the high-quality reliable sources? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have been clearer; I mean I saw it as "The Farseer Trilogy", not "the Farseer trilogy. As to a summary: I have for just Farseer 2 (Teitelbaum, Mendlesohn), The Farseer Trilogy 2 (Elliot, Prater), the Farseer trilogy 1 (Melville), The Farseer 3 (Clute, Holliday & Morgan, Young), ambiguous/dodging the matter altogether (Harris-Fain, Flood, Moran, Larsson, Senior). Senior actually uses both Farseer Trilogy and Farseer trilogy. So I guess it's messier than I remembered, but the numerically most common "The Farseer" is only used when the individual works are subsequently listed (as in Clute), I'm not actually sure what to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I added a table on article talk. Perhaps we can continue the discussion there? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"to "brand" her Farseer work". I am not sure that the quote marks are necessary.
Removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"avoiding public readings or signings of the novels for multiple years". Is it known when she first read or signed any Farseer work?
I haven't been able to find anything in the sources. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"leads Chivalry to abdicate". Can an heir abdicate? Perhaps 'relinquish his claim' or similar?
The primary text uses "abdicate", but I agree it can lead to confusion, so reworded.
"without ever meeting Fitz: Chivalry's brother Prince Verity". Is the use of a colon intentional?
Adjusted slightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"their relationship later ends with a conflict over his duties to the throne." I had to read this several times to see what you were driving at. Optionally, perhaps something like 'their relationship later ends when it conflicts with his duties to the throne'?
Agree the wording is suboptimal, not sure it's fair to say the relationship ends when it conflicts...changed to "but their relationship later as the result of conflict over Fitz's duties", is that better? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"them through a form of zombification, they are rendered emotionless". I think that comma should be a semi colon.
Adjusted. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"on a road wrought with the skill". Should that be 'Skill'?
It should. Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments as always, I'd been hoping you'd look in. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The trilogy is described as drawing from Arthurian legend in its characters and narrative motifs. Shrewd's decline recalls the legend of the Fisher King, while Regal bears similarities to Mordred, and Chade to Merlin." You present these as facts, unlike the rest of the paragraph, where similar issues are labelled as opinions.
It seems to me the "is described" conveys that it's an opinion. I've added a colon between the two pieces of that, does that help? If not, we could have "Scholar W. A. Senior writes that..." I suppose, but it seems unnecessarily wordy given how we've constructed the other paragraphs there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, tht does it. (Clever.)

"English scholar Peter Melville". 'British' might both identify his nationality and avoid an ambiguity.
Agreed, changed. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he's Canadian and a professor of English. I've just removed the "English" (to be consistent with the other scholars). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The secret is eventually one of many of Fitz's "multiple closeted lives" that drives Molly away from him." Perhaps 'The secret is one of many of Fitz's "multiple closeted lives" that eventually drives Molly away from him.'?
Yes, better. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"worldwide sales of the Elderlings had crossed a million copies as of 2003". Twenty-year-old data! This is meant to be Wikipedia.
See reply to Lee below: I've struggled to find good sources discussing sales numbers for this book, as with so many others. Would you prefer we just omitted this? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, as presented, yes. Maybe something like 'worldwide the Elderlings sold more than a million copies by 2003, and UK sales alone had exceeded 1.25 million copies by 2017' would at least hand wave over the antiquity of the data?

I like that construction, I've used it. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Et fin. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some bits and pieces above.

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

Do we have no details on sales? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything, and I've found in general numbers are very difficult to come by for anything that isn't peaking on the best-seller list. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FitzChivalry (known as Fitz) - I feel like we could express this when we introduce the character to begin with. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lede doesn't cover the publisher at all. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's necessary. The publisher's in the infobox, and there's two publishers even for the "first" edition, making it clunky to work in. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox states "Country: US, UK", was the item not released anywhere else? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen editions in other languages listed on ISFDB and elsewhere, but haven't seen evidence of secondary sources covering this. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I tend to think that for captions on images we shouldn't expect the reader to have read the supporting prose. The caption "Hobb in 2017" is fine, but perhaps "Author Robin Hobb pictured in 2017" is a bit more explainatory. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reading a bit more, we could probably state something more about how Hobb was a ghost name in the caption. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The core idea for the Farseer series was^{[according to whom?]} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The author. Now worked in, though I like the flow of the sentence less. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really suitable to talk about this person using a pseudonym for the whole article? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; it's how all the sources do it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article links "Six Duchies" but not on the first usage. Considering this redirects to the article on the author, is this a suitable link? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite realistic for there to be an article about the fictional geography, at which point this would redirect to a section. I'm not fussed about whether we keep this link until that time, but I don't see how it hurts. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we link it at first mention; could it be linked in the lead; if it is decided not to link it to the author's article, could it be red linked. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good questions; I don't love the optics of a red link in the lead (if nothing else, it means every other editor who's just reading will remove it), so omitted link for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering each novel has their own article, do we need a plot summary of each book, and not rather a summary of the trilogy as a whole? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we've tried to do, but the sub-sectioning seems logical. Were I to write a plot summary for a single book, it would be considerably longer. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the quote box? Seems like a random quote and we don't make a critical mention in the box. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've used quote-boxes not infrequently to add variety to articles about books or writers, where images aren't easy to come by. In this case the quote exemplifies the style paragraph next to it, and I'm likely to think it's helpful. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde93 on this particular quote, which seems a great fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not terribly useful with respect to reviewing for sports, but I'll have a look, I'm trying to do four reviews per nomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I was wondering if you had any responses or further comments, and if not if you can see your way to making a declaration? Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'll support. If you have any time, I have some items at my nominations list, otherwise, good job! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor MOS nitpick

MOS:SERIESTITLE: "Descriptive titles for media franchises (including trilogies and other series of novels or films) and fictional universes should not be placed in italics or quotation marks... " The exception is if there is an official title from the publisher, is that the case? (t · c) buidhe 04:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: We've had some discussion as to the title here, and agreed to retitle this "Farseer trilogy", as the most common formulation in the sources. We're not making the page move until the FAC is closed. See the talk page discussion on the subject. Would that address your concern? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me why Farseer is italicized in that case, since it's part of a descriptive title. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Farseer is an official title declared by the UK publisher: see [3], so I think we meet MOS:SERIESTITLE's requirement. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All adjustments made to move the page and FAC to new title; I'll keep watchlisted to doublecheck the bot processing, which should be fine now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.