Talk:Eldest

GA fail

This is a good beginning for the Eldest article, but some significant revisions and additions still need to be made:

• The description of the plot in the lead could be expanded by a sentence or two. For someone who has not read either book, it would not make much sense.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• The third paragraph of the lead offers too many details that belong in the body of the article.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. Information about the book's reception and the movie adaptation are missing.

 Done Shrewpelt 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Though it won't be completely done until it summarises sections which don't actually exist yet (i.e. the themes section). Una Laguna^Talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• The plot summary should be reduced - we are not SparkNotes. It is also hard to follow the summary. I have read the first book, but not this one. I found it difficult to sift through this and find the narrative thread. Include only the most important parts of the story.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• A "Themes" section, based on reviews at this point and on scholarship once it is published, is a necessity. Articles about novels must discuss the themes of the book, not just their plot.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• A section on "Literary style and genre" would be an excellent idea - in what ways does this book draw on the fantasy genre, for example? It seems like the reviews had a lot to say about that.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• A section offering background information on the first book might help readers unfamiliar with it.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• The prose is repetitive in the "Critical reception" section - the book's indebtedness to other fantasy works does not have to be stated repeatedly - it can be stated once.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would also suggest that the links in the article be reworked according to WP:MOS-L.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have any questions about this review, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. Awadewit | talk 21:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is some additional areas to work on:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.

I just checked for the "don't", it is in a quotation. Shrewpelt (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 02:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I just forgot to log on and added the ArticleHistory template. Sorry! Shrewpelt (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnes and Noble as a source

As Barnes and Noble is selling these books, can we really take their review as a legitimate criticism? To me, it's the equivalent of looking at the book sleeve for an unbiased review of the book... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeviantCharles (talk • contribs) 09:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

GAC again?

I've addressed all concerns that the reviewer had, so I think this article might get GA now. Are there any comments or concerns about me proposing Eldest? Shrewpelt (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points stick out which shouldn't take too long to fix:

• One- and two-sentence paragraphs should be avoided where possible. Try to merge/expand paragraphs to fix this.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Also" is used quite a bit. The repetition hurts the prose quality.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at other good articles, they don't source the plot summary (I imagine it's assumed that you're sourcing it from the novel). Having a ^[5] at the end of each paragraph also looks a bit rubbish. I'd suggest just deleting them.

 Done Shrewpelt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks fine. _{Disclaimer: Una Laguna has no real experience with Good Articles in the novel field.} Una Laguna^Talk 20:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have these three things down. Any other comments? Shrewpelt (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing obvious seems to be wrong with the article. The only reason a GA reviewer might get annoyed at the length of the Themes/Literary Style sections is because there isn't much information available anyway. That's probably the main thing they'd pick up on. I don't think this article's going to get a quickfail now so we might as well go for it. _{Insert disclaimer here.} Una Laguna^Talk 06:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That is bothering me too, and I plan to continue expanding the article during its GAC period. I've just expanded the Themes section a bit. Shrewpelt (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded the Literary style and genre section. I think it's time propose Eldest! Any more comment? I'll propose tomorrow if there are no objections. Shrewpelt (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 23, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. Excellent lead section and good plot summary for such a large book

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Needed to tweak the fair use rationale but Pass

Future improvements could be designing a table for the release dates of the book. More notable information could be added on the other editions. How well did the deluxe edition sell? How was it recieved in other countries, did it make best selling lists their as well or is it unknown? Any real world information about the actual writing process would also improve the article, how long did the book take the write for instance. Is it known if anything significant was cut from the book? Hope these give you some ideas for future expansion! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and you could add information about the book launch if any is avalible. Million_Moments (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Shrewpelt and co! Una Laguna^Talk 19:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations!--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 00:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Shrewpelt (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Orrin?

When I search the site for "Orrin" I am redirected to this page –which as far as I can tell– has no mentions of that word whatsoever. I would expect to be directed to a disambiguation page, since there is at least one infamous American senator with that name.

I have added a hatnote about Orin. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ONCE AGIN i have to say this on this page!!!! Orrin is King Orrin of Surda!!! He is a character!!!! good greif User:Dursely —Preceding comment was added at 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Archival?

This talk page is getting a bit long. Does anyone else think it should be archived? Shrewpelt (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've archived everything from earlier than this year. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Significance of name?

What exactly does the title refer to in the book? Eragon and Brisingr make sense, but what about Eldest? That should be in the article somewhere, because I don't remember what and it's not listed anywhere. Anakinjmt (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad on deleting this :S If there isn't a reliable source which discusses the importance of the title, then I'm not sure this detail would be notable enough for inclusion in the article. Una Laguna^Talk 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What does it refer to? Anybody know? If it's something obvious which I just can't recall at the time, then it'd probably be okay to include. I mean, the titles of Eragon and Brisingr are pretty easy to figure out what the title is a reference to in the book (main character, sword) but Eldest was the only one I didn't know. I get the impression it was something specific, but I honestly don't remember. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it refers to Murtagh being Eragon's brother (or something similar), but I'm not sure. Una Laguna^Talk 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not specifically Murtagh as Eragon's brother, more of the fact that he's an older brother. However, given that there are only two of them, the title would be correct as Elder, as there must be three ranked items to use the -est suffix. --tennisman 20:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the name takes it's significance from the section in the novel when Murtagh takes Zar'roc, claiming the sword as his birth right being the eldest son of Morzan. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the title might also refer to Oromis, who is the oldest surviving dragon rider and is a very important character in Eldest.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eldest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070323033223/http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/39/18439.php to http://www.movieweb.com/dvd/news/39/18439.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gramedia.com/buku_detail.asp?id=FLNO4550&kat=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)