Wikipedia:Peer review/The Farseer Trilogy/archive1

The Farseer Trilogy

Listing this article for peer review to receive feedback before taking it to FAC. This is a collab with Vanamonde93.

Thanks, Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this...@Mike Christie:, perhaps you'd be willing to leave your comments here? I do still plan on working through the themes section, so that may move around a bit, but I believe we're both done tinkering with the rest for the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I'm pretty sure I read the first of these twenty or more years ago, but I remember so little about it that these comments are effectively from a non-reader.

Thanks for your comments as always. Noting here that I'm going to make some adjustments based on these comments, but we may well wish to revisit the lead after we're done with the rest. Also signing below, as I normally would not, to allow you to differentiate my responses from those of our good humanoid robot. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "It is often described as epic fantasy, but also as character-driven and introspective." For some reason this doesn't seem very fluent to me. I think it's because there's no obvious opposition between the two -- one describes the overall plot, and the other describes how interest is maintained on the page and the writing style. Perhaps we don't need to oppose these?

  Minor adjustment made: "It is often described as epic fantasy, and as a character-driven and introspective story." Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "foreign naval raids into the land": I can guess what is intended, but it reads very oddly, as if the foreign ships could sail across fields.

  now "and the kingdom is threatened by naval raids." Better? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Fitz possesses twin forms of telepathic magic that enable him to battle the invaders and bond with a wolf": twin, or just two? And any wolf, or one particular wolf?
• "but his abilities expose him to societal prejudice": if, as I suspect, the prejudice is against magic users, we should probably come out and say so.

  I've reworked the first paragraph: better? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The series follows his life as he seeks to restore stability to the kingdom." Suggest "The series follows his attempts to restore stability to the kingdom." Or is "life" there because this is only part of the story, and the events of his life are a major part of the book?

  I do think his life is substantive enough (his wolf-bond, for one) to keep in there. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The trilogy saw the debut of the Robin Hobb pen name of author Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden." I think "the Robin Hobb pen name of" is a bit ugly. How about "Hobb had published previous work as "Megan Lindholm"; the Farseer trilogy was the first time she used "Robin Hobb" as her pen name." And perhaps add "(a pseudonym for Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden)" to either this sentence or the article's first sentence?

  Agreed, tweaked. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  I tried recasting to avoid repeating Hobb; how does this look? "The Farseer trilogy was the author's first work as "Robin Hobb"; she had published previously as "Megan Lindholm", another pseudonym for Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden." Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "focuses on a stereotypically minor character in Fitz, an illegitimate child": is "minor" the right word? We have to go with what the sources say, of course, but the son of a prince, even if illegitimate is not a minor person in most fantasy novels. Is the intent something like "focuses, stereotypically for the genre, on a character with disadvantages of birth who has to fight unjust persecution"?

  Mendlesohn is very terse here. As I see it her point is that the quest is not to reclaim his own prestige (or crown or honour or what have you); his entire quest is on behalf of the royal heir and the kingdom. Which, if I may be so bold as to say, matches my sense of a strong theme in the text; Fitz and those around him speak of his being a "King's man". I don't see too much discussion of that in the sources though. I've clarified a little, we could look into this again later I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "two forms of magic, the socially acceptable Skill and the despised Wit": can we get even just a word or two of definition to distinguish these?

  Added a tiny bit. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• "with which the series concluded in 2017": personal preference, but I would probably make this "which the series concluded with in 2017".

  Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that some of the above questions are resolved in the body, but I deliberately didn't look at the body of the article while making these notes, since that's how most readers will come to the article. I have a GA review I need to go do, so I'll do that and come back here to look at the body afterwards. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of time this morning to make further comments, but the above changes look good. I have a short trip coming up starting tomorrow so I'm not sure when I'll next have much time to post; I'll try to get some comments in tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Some of these prose suggestions are just that -- suggestions. To me they sound like improvements, but you may disagree. If I think there's actually something wrong that needs fixing I'll say so instead of just giving a suggested wording change.

• "They were her first works under that pseudonym. She previously wrote as "Megan Lindholm", in the genres of urban fantasy and science fiction.[4] Her work as Lindholm was critically well-received": she continued to write under this name occasionally, so a phrasing that doesn't imply that she never did so again would be good. How about 'They were her first works under that pseudonym, though she had already published urban fantasy and science fiction under the name "Megan Lindholm"'.
• "Explaining the decision in an interview, Hobb stated that": suggest "Hobb explained in an interview that she chose the pseudonym because".

  Both done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "The geography of the Six Duchies has been recognized as resembling the U.S. state of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, where Hobb lived for a number of years": has Hobb acknowledged the resemblance/influence?

  She talked about it in an interview; added more details. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Elliot has a good chunk about this, and I'm considering adding some material from him, but I think that would fit better in "style". Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  There's a lot about PNW indigenous culture in Elliott 2015, but it seemed to be mostly about the Tawny Man trilogy. I'm not sure if the settings he talks about appear in Farseer. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "whose raids bear resemblance to Viking invasions of Briton": well, "Britain", but the Vikings raided the European continent too. I know the story of their English raids best, because I've read a lot of Anglo-Saxon history, but I wonder if this would be better as just "whose raids bear resemblances to those of the Vikings". Or "of the Vikings in Europe"? "of Britain" isn't wrong, but if we keep it it should be because it's deliberate.

  Senior says "England", which I suppose I could use; but given how fuzzy he is on the details, and the fact that the "Vikings" piece is acknowledged by other sources (Elliot) I'll omit the "Briton" (the -on vs -ain is my error). Vanamonde (Talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• The former is passed on through the royal bloodline of the Six Duchies, while the latter is viewed with revulsion, its practitioners being persecuted." Suggest "and its practitioners are persecuted". Since we say the Skill is inherited is there anything parallel to say about the Wit? "the latter appears at random. The Wit is viewed with revulation and its practitioners are persecuted".

  Changed. I'll see if I can find anything about the Wit; I think it might also be passed on by blood. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "which he begins to train in under of Skillmaster Galen"

  Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "with a wolf named Nighteyes, who he rescues as a cub from a trapper": this would have to be "whom" but that would sound odd, used for a wolf. Suggest recasting.

  Adjusted wording. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "and an enigmatic friendship with the court jester": just guessing, but from the comments in the background section I wonder if this should be "and a friendship with the enigmatic court jester".

  Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Fitz's quest, in this case,": suggest "In Fitz's case the quest" -- I think the current wording carries the idea that Fitz might have other quests in other cases.

  Done Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• 'a "young misfit coming of age"': I haven't read the Themes section yet (I'm almost out of time for the moment) but of course this is a major trope in sf and fantasy, going back to Slan and before. Perhaps that could be mentioned? Might be tricky without a source explicitly talking about it though.

  I haven't, sadly, noticed this in the sources yet, though I haven't finished reading Larsson. It seemed an obvious trope to me, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've read to the end of the Style section; more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading in a coffee shop waiting for someone so not sure how much I’ll get done here.

• “The Wit also allows makes Fitz aware of”

  Done.

• “Thereby, Prater argues, Hobb suggests that the self is”: perhaps “is suggesting” rather than “suggests”, to avoid the repetition of tense forms with “argues”.

  Done.

• “ Hobb suggests that the self is entirely dependent on others, and cannot live autonomously”: if Prater’s text allows it I think this could do with expansion. Fitz’s connectedness with other living things is not shared with most people in his world, but Prater makes this a general statement about all people. That works if Prater is simultaneously pointing out that the non-Wit characters in the series are incomplete in some sense, or if her argument is a bit more extended than we give here. As it stands it seems a bit illogical.

  There's more material in Prater, I'll need to get back to this though; logging off very shortly. My readins is that the point being made is not that most individuals are incomplete, but that most are unaware of interdependence: Fitz's ability provides him evidence for the worldview Hobb wishes to convey. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That does make sense but could be clearer in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've expanded this somewhat: "The Wit also makes Fitz aware of an interconnectedness between living creatures; by severing such connections the Raiders turn people into the animalistic Forged." Hope that makes the argument clearer. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• “its practitioners are persecuted, publicly hanged and forced into hiding”: suggest something like “its practitioners are persecuted and may be publicly hanged or forced into hiding” to avoid misreading that final “and”.
• Has Hobb gone on the record in any interviews about the queer theme? The parallels seem very strong, to the point where it would seem undeniable, so surely Hobb has been asked about this?

  I haven't seen any yet, but I'll look: O-D has likely read more interviews than I have. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  She's been rather vague about it in the interviews I've read, e.g in [1] she just says "I think we can see that in almost any society, that something that is accepted and OK in one society makes you a member of a despised group in another society". I'll see if I can find anything more concrete. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not a problem for this article, but shouldn’t the articles on the individual books redirect here?

  I've been mulling over this, and have been unable to decide where I stand. Each book received independent reviews in decent sources (Locus, PW, and Kirkus reviewed each, unless I'm much mistaken), and it'd be hard to argue they don't meet GNG. On the other hand they've clearly been treated as a body by the literary scholars, far more than most series I'm familiar with. I would struggle to write themes sections for the standalone articles. It's not unreasonable to say that all the content that would be in a standalone article is already here. I'm open to persuasion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  I personally don't see much value in those articles... they seem to be content forks but without the capacity for Themes sections, which as you note are discussed either for the trilogies or the Elderlings series as a whole. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• ‘Publisher's Weekly also praised Hobb's "shimmering language" and stated that the trilogy had a bittersweet theme.[58] Fantasy & Science Fiction similarly described Hobb's prose in the first volume as "skillful",[61] while Library Journal regarded it "gracefully written", with focus on themes of loyalty and trust.’ A minor suggestion is to avoid “state”, which I think never reads as naturally as “said”, but that’s personal preference. My main suggestion here is to try to combine these three review comments, all of which are praising the language. Perhaps ‘Publishers Weekly praised Hobb’s “shimmering language”, which other reviewers described as “skillful” and “gracefully written”.’ The comments on the themes could be used elsewhere in the paragraph, perhaps. I know this doesn’t attribute the reviewer at all inline, and some editors don’t like that, but I think so long as it’s cited it’s fine. Doing it this way smooths the reader’s path; for longer quotes it’s reasonable for the reader to wonder who said it, but there seems little value in attributing one- and two-word quotes inline.

— Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I've had enough reviewers grumble about this that I'm now reluctant to omit it...I've reworked a little, let me know if it's still clunky. If it is, I'd be fine with your suggestion. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that’s everything I have. Not an issue with the article, but more of an FYI: reading this article doesn’t make me want to read the trilogy. I’m attracted by the praise of Hobb’s writing and by some of the set up — the Skill/Wit division sounds interesting, and I like the idea of the Wit as an allegory for otherness in various forms. But the story sounds like it would be more about failure, angst, fear, and shame than about characters who are a pleasure to meet, a sense of wonder at new ideas, and the fun of watching your favourite characters succeed in a difficult adventure. It sounds depressing! As I say I don’t think you need to change the article in any way, but I thought you might want to know what it conveys to a non-reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation, and actually mirrors my own experience before I read the books; bald descriptions of them do not do them justice. I'm not quite sure of why that's the case, though. If I were to speculate, I'd suggest that many excellent stories that deal with darker themes do not sound appealing when summarized; the joy is in the writing, and the author's sensitivity, which can't be conveyed when you're looking at the bigger picture.

Mike, do you feel this is a decent FA candidate? I think we have a decent amount of material, but I've always felt hesitant in my assessment when dealing with a body of work rather than a single volume. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the lead is gloomier than the body is? I can't tell, but maybe a little more on the Arthurian style and a bit less on the gloomier aspects might help. As for the books themselves, I think they are kinda depressing: the focus is on realism and flawed characters. There is a whole fantasy subgenre that is pessimistic (GRRM, Abercrombie, etc), and while I wouldn't classify Hobb as grimdark (she's not as nihilistic as GRRM), I think she leans in that direction. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good FAC candidate. Is it worth addressing the merger of the three book articles first? Looking at them, I realize we don’t have the publication details — you give the publisher of each volume in the background section but it might be worth listing the three volumes in cite book format somewhere in the article. Wouldn’t it be better to settle the merger question first? Though I agree that it’s hard to imagine how the outcome of a merger discussion could change the content of this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've listed them as primary sources at the bottom - does this look ok? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

For the merger (more like a redirect discussion), I think an issue is that in Template:Robin Hobb, it would look weird for the first and remaining sub-series to be treated differently. One of them, the Rain Wild chronicles, doesn't have a series article yet: I have a userspace draft that I'm working on. Perhaps we can revisit the idea of a merger once that article is out there? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Based on the sources I have read thus far, I feel if any of the Elderlings books deserve standalone articles, these do. As such if we're looking to do mergers, I think we'd have to look into merging many of them...Vanamonde (Talk) 01:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

So long as you’re prepared to answer any questions that might come up at FAC about what the dividing line is between the content of this article and the content of the three book articles, you should be fine at FAC. I don’t think it would prevent promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Second pass

• “Fitz possesses two forms of telepathic magic: the Skill that runs in the royal line, and the socially despised Wit that enables bonding with animals.” Suggest “Fitz possesses two forms of magic: the telepathic Skill that runs in the royal line, and the socially despised Wit that enables bonding with animals.” This makes the structures a bit more parallel.
• ‘The Farseer novels were written by American author Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden under the name "Robin Hobb". . . . In 1995, Lindholm shifted to writing secondary-world fantasy and adopted a new byline, "Robin Hobb".’ This is slightly repetitive. What about making this paragraph more chronological, to avoid this? ‘In the 1980s, American author Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden began publishing urban fantasy and science fiction under the name “Megan Lindholm”. Her work was critically well-received, and her short fiction was nominated for the Hugo and Nebula Awards, but was commercially unsuccessful. In 1995 she shifted to writing secondary-world fantasy, beginning with the Farseer trilogy, and adopted a new byline, "Robin Hobb".’

  Both done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• “The group follows Verity's footsteps”: is this a literal reference to footsteps in some way? If not I would suggest “follows in Verity’s footsteps” or “follows Verity’s route”.

  No actual footsteps; changed to "follows in Verity's footsteps". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• A follow up comment: the emphasis on queerness is so strong in both the themes and reception sections that I think quoting Hobb would be useful. It sounds like she’s quite open to the interpretation but doesn’t want to privilege it with auctorial approval; if that’s right, and there are quotes that unambiguously support that, I think a reader of this article would want to know. Conversely, if we find a quote in which she says queerness was always the allegorical meaning she had in mind, that would be worth including too.

  All done. I've added the best quote I've found so far, but will keep looking for something more direct. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't found anything about the Wit, but Hobb has said on her LiveJournal that she was opposed to Fitz and the Fool being romantically linked. No secondary sources have picked this up, though... Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve finished reading through again and I think this is ready to nominate at FAC; just a couple of minor points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed review! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, Mike. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think we're ready for your comments whenever you're free. Thanks for offering to review. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

O-D I finally have a break and will start in. Because you have three competent FA writers on board, I won't concern myself with the sorts of things I usually look at, and will confine my review to a layperson/jargon check; that is, when you go to FAC, you will be able to say that a person not familiar in the slightest with the topic has checked it for comprehensibility/jargon. If I change anything you disagree with as I read/edit, do not hesitate to revert anything I mess up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Sandy. To be quite honest I'm struggling to follow in a couple of places because the indenting is odd; did you mean to start all the newlines? Anyhow, some responses from me below, indented with a colon so they're comprehensible, though if we want this PR to remain accessible in the future we need to fix this. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes an accessdate is given when there is a URL, sometimes not ... Check throughout for accessdates on websites, eg:

• "Robin Hobb Titles". Science Fiction Awards Database. Locus Science Fiction Foundation. Retrieved September 26, 2022.

but ...

• "A New Look for The Farseer Trilogy". HarperVoyager. February 26, 2014.
• Teitelbaum, Ilana (September 8, 2014). "Bright Home, Dark Heart". Los Angeles Review of Books.

(I suspect you have a consistent method for not using an access date when it is available hard print, but why give reviewers something to pick at when you can just add the dates ? Your choice as long as you are consistent ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It was easier to make consistent by using publication dates (only two refs); if someone insists I can add access dates. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what this maintenance category refers to or how to find/fix the issue:

• Hidden categories: CS1 maint: unfit URL

If you are unable to track that down, you might ping DrKay or ask at the CS1 talk page (which I never know where to find). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It's Category:CS1_maint:_unfit_URL, and it's because I'm using "url-status=unfit" for the Suvudu ref, where the original url is now spam. Looking at the documentation, that maintenance category is supposed to be added apparently; it's working as intended (but weird since it looks like an error). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point in the lead:

• the telepathic Skill that runs in the royal line, and the socially despised Wit

it's unclear to me why Skill and Wit uppercase ... perhaps it will become clear as I read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, ha, revealed in the second para: "Through her portrayal of the Wit, a form of magic Fitz uses to bond with the wolf Nighteyes, ... " if it's possible to make an adjustment on the first occurrence, the reader wouldn't have to stumble over why it's a proper noun ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Recast, better now? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Fundamentally, capitalized because the author does; hard to make explicit. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The narrative quickly drops the full name of FitzChivalry Farseer and begins referring to Fitz ... should that be in parens on the first occurrence ? it tells the story of FitzChivalry Farseer (Fitz) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Added parentheses to the next occurrence (I thought it would be distracting in this sentence). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This contains some repetition from the first para:

• but focuses on a stereotypically minor character in Fitz, an illegitimate child barred from the throne.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added some more detail in order to remove the repetition; better? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking good through this point ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Unclear why the quotes are needed here:

• The Farseer trilogy was the author's first work as "Robin Hobb"; she had published previously as "Megan Lindholm" ... unless I misremember, we didn't do that with Galbraith at Rowling?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The flow here is confusing. Until this point, I thought her name was Robin Hobb, and this construct/late presentation meant I had to go back to the first line of the article and click on her article to find out that Ogden is her name:

• The Farseer trilogy was the author's first work as "Robin Hobb"; she had published previously as "Megan Lindholm", another pseudonym for Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden.

Can that be sorted initially along the lines of how we handled Rowling ? Not fussed about this, but it does cause the unitiated reader some confusion and backtracking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

All of of this becomes more clear when one gets to the background section. Perhaps one solution is to not go in to that detail in the lead by ...

• The Farseer trilogy was the author's first work as "Robin Hobb"; she had published previously as "Megan Lindholm", another pseudonym for Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden. -- > instead --> The Farseer trilogy was Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden's first work as Robin Hobb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

  Rephrased. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what this means (non-literary issue?) ... characterization of what or whom? And the stuff following the colon leads me to expect characterization to be plural ??

• Hobb received particular praise for her characterization:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Switched to "characterization of Fitz". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just Fitz though. Adjusted slightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I stumbled over the passive voice here, but don't know how to fix it:

• It incubated over many years, and the first book was initially titled Chivalry's Bastard before becoming Assassin's Apprentice.

There's more passive voice in the rest of that paragraph that I thought could be phrased more directly ... could a wolf move into her home without her having a role in that? "As the novels were written" --> as she wrote the novels? Etc ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think V93 has gotten most of this. Regarding the wolf, I'm not sure how to rephrase: the source seems to imply the wolf entered their house on its own (!): "In the 1950s her parents moved their six children from suburban California to a log cabin in Alaska which had no electricity or running water. Within weeks, a half-wolf had moved in." Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I see most issues to this point resolved, so I may stop following now, as I'm so swamped. O-D, I have travel coming up, where I will have very limited internet access, then followed by a large group of houseguests for an extended time. If you go to FAC at a time when I can't get in there, please do say that it had an uninvolved review by someone unfamiliar with the area (moi :) ... I'm satisfied that the article is free of jargon and comprehensible to a non-topic expert, and is quite competently, indeed engagingly, written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tweaked a little, but in some cases active voice everywhere makes for repetitive phrasing. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The previous paragraph uses US, but then we hit U.S. here:

• resembles the U.S. state of Alaska

Make consistent throughout, doesn't matter which ... US/UK or U.S./U.K. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Made consistent. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph break at this point, to divide geography from society ??

• The society of the fictional universe is comparable to Western feudalism,

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Paragraph break at this point, to divide geography and society from plot ?? (And add a semi-colon after "on another"?)

• As the series begins, the Six Duchies is under assault from the "Red-ship Raiders", whose raids bear resemblance to Viking invasions.[25] Two magical powers exist: the Skill, which allows humans to communicate at great distances and for one person to impose their will on another, and the Wit, which allows a bonding without dominance between humans and animals.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think this may be the third time Skill is defined ... can that all be put together in one place on first occurrence?

• His bloodline grants him access to a form of telepathic magic called the Skill,

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Is it? I see an instance in the lead, and one in the body. The piece in "writing" can't really be combined, because it's the idea that existed before the Skill and Wit were written...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not convinced this is a contradiction:

• however, Galen proceeds to telepathically torture Fitz and blunt his ability to use the Skill.

See overuse of however and User:John/however. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-colon instead of colon ?

• Regal has him tortured, trying to wrest a confession: on the brink of death, he retreats to Nighteyes' body at the wolf's plea.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction? How can stone be Skill ?

• Two magical powers exist: the Skill, which allows humans to communicate at great distances and for one person to impose their will on another,
• they find Verity in a quarry of Skill stone,

That is made clear in the subsequent sentences, so perhaps the flow can be adjusted so the reader doesn't have to stumble. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

First occurrence of lowercase skill, intentional ?

• Fitz battles Regal with the skill and defeats him

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Not. Changed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the only mention of drugs in the entire article, so I'm left unclear to what it refers:

• Skill's potential effect on Fitz's memory, and on drugs and addiction

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

By the time I hit the fifth (out of six total) mentions of first-person, it started to feel repetitive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Similar to my comment above about Skill, it seems that Wit is also defined and re-defined several times throughout, perhaps some consolidation at first occurrence ?

• As a practitioner of the Wit, a form of magic described as a connection to all living things,

I can see this may be difficult as different aspects are needed at different points in the narrative-- just something to look at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That's it for me, other than a distinctly opposite impression from Mike ("reading this article doesn’t make me want to read the trilogy"); yes, this is FA material, and yes the article made me want to read the Trilogy. I think the work is quite fine and does draw the reader's interest. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, appreciated. O-D, I'm thinking we can keep this open another week or so if you'd like, but we're ready to go to FAC. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. V93, yes I agree, let me close this. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)