Talk:Crown Duel

Discussion

Currently, I've made Court Duel redirect to this page, as Firebird Books published Crown Duel and Court Duel together in 2002. Also, there is not enough information on here yet to warrant two articles, though eventually there may be. However, they were first published separately, so I didn't know what to put in the infobox. Jennifu 17:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't spot the policy that says were're supposed to, but there's a whole suggesting that infoboxes are supposed to use photos of the first edition (and I would presume the rest of the infomation as well), although in this case the unified edition is almost a new book (e.g. there have been edits), compared to, say, The Lord of the Rings being published in a single volume. —AltiusBimm 15:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The way it's done now seems fine to me. Jennifu 16:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't Meliara have a longer full name? —AltiusBimm 15:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Her full name (before she's married) is Meliara Astiar.Jennifu 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crown Duel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 19:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

For this review, I will go through the article with a fine toothed comb looking for all of the following criteria and will check them off as I finish them:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:  Working

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  Done

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:  Done

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:  Done

   C. No original research:  Done

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:  Done

   B. Focused:  Done

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:  Done

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:  Done since the revisions are recent, we can wait on that for a few weeks.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  Done

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  Done

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: ✓ Pass

Clarity and prose

Please work on the following:

Lead

• "Smith invented Sartorias-deles as an idealized world, in which humans entered over a number of centuries and were influenced by its indigenous peoples enough to better themselves" - Don't know how indigenous contrasts with humans or what an idealized world is. How might you focus the sentence to provide contextual information for the unfamiliar reader?

• I've reworded this to hopefully make it a bit more clear. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Good job! Sadads (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "worked hard" - does she actually do it though? How might you rely more objectively on the discussion of the work itself, rather then the effort of the writer?

• I've tweaked this. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Done Excellent, Sadads (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "In the fictional country of Remalna in Sartorias-deles, fifteen-year-old Countess Meliara "Mel" Astiar of Tlanth swears to her dying father that she and her older brother Count Branaric "Bran" will defend their people from the growing greed of King Galdran, who covets the Tlanth lands for his cruel cousin Baron Nenthar Debegri." Way too long of a sentence, and way too much information. Should be broken into at least 2-3 sentences.

• Agree, have split up. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done did a little more beyond your break, Sadads (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "or conspiring to break the Covenant." What covenant?

• Have hopefully clarified this enough in the development and plot sections. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done good explanation! Sadads (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Initially she thinks that Shevraeth betrayed her, but soon discovers that this is not the case and that Bran is alive" what causes that change? What details would communicate what creates that difference?

• Have expanded on this. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sadads (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "They kill Galdran in battle." What is the signficance of killing him? What does it change in the political dynamics underlying the plot? Who gains power?

• Hmmm... I'm not sure how to answer this. The only effect is has is that he's now dead, clearing the way for another to take the throne. No one specifically gains power, although Shevraeth obviously steps into the void eventually. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was getting at: the way its frame in the plot summary his death offers an opportunity for some type of structural change in the power forces in the novel. Without an explanation like, "They kill Galdran, ending the war and creating opportunity for a change in power in Remalna", it simply becomes an meaningless action instead of part of the political map of the plot.

• Ah, I see. I hope you don't mind that I've essentially used your wording (it seemed better than anything I could have wrote). Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Excellent, glad that helped! Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "secretly attempts to manipulate Mel into distracting Shevraeth from her plans, though this is largely unsuccessful." You are going to have to spoil this part of the plot in order to make the plot summary effective. Remember Wikipedia:Spoiler allows for those unvealings

• I have added a line to this effect ("to take the throne for herself"). Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

Background and development

• "for instance observing how sewers made cities so clean". I think this might be better matched with a quote... I don't normally think of sewers as cleaning mechanisms of cities (though they are), you might be missing some meaning here. Sadads (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, Smith has a slight tendency to ramble on about odd things, sometimes incoherently. I have added in the full quote to hopefully provide more clarity to readers. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done This makes a lot more sense, I think the paraphrasing and quotation was taking meaning out of context, Sadads (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• "culture of its indigenous peoples" - like in the earlier concern about the lead, fantasy novels often have other non-human "peoples", is this what is implied here? For someone who hasn't read the book it could be confusing, Sadads (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Though Smith herself uses the term "indigenous peoples," I've changed this to "beings," as they are not really people in the same sense as humans. Hope that helps. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneThats a good fix, definitely a good way to ensure that readers aren't confused, Sadads (talk)

• "Crown Duel is set in the fictional country of Remalna. Remalna's human population lives alongside the mysterious Hill Folk, sentient beings that reside in the land's forests, and with whom the protagonist Meliara has a special affinity.Smith's stories set in the world of Sartorias-deles have "focuse[d on] a generation of kids with remarkable abilities who are born into extraordinary times." These two sentences don't flow together, I am not sure if I understand why they are related. It needs some sort of transition, to make sure that the jump doesn't create unintended meanings.

• Would it help if I reversed the sentences and copyedited them a little? How do they look now? Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done That works great! Not how I was thinking about the fix, but better! Sadads (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• " not approve of "real stuff" like Crown Duel." What does she mean by real stuff? Can you provide some more contextual information about why its "real" instead of other "not real". (real is a vague term).

• Yeah, this is how she terms it. I have added a bit more to the section, so now it says " When Smith learned as a teenager that "anyone could write a book," she tried to write stories that would please potential publishers, as she assumed that they would never approve of "real stuff" like Crown Duel." Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  DoneI think the explanation makes it a better sentence, Sadads (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception

• "The completed volume of Crown Duel is considered Smith's most popular YA book and literary critics have tended to review them seperately" - What are the seperate parts? who considers the complete volume the most popular? What publishing situation led to the separate reviews? I would recommend breaking this sentence out of that first paragraph, expanding the thoughts I have there and providing more summary of the section to follow. This will ensure that the reader can start the section and anticipate the overall importance of the section.

• I've made clear who thinks it is her most popular. And by separately, I mean that most reviews I've found are from 1997/1998, which means they reviewed each book on its own. I have removed the "separately" sentence as it may be borderline OR, and have added a bit to the publication section on why the books were split. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Sadads (talk)

• For each subsequent paragraph, make sure that you include a topic sentence that describes the direction of the paragraph. Without some sort of direction the paragraphs just read like a list of quotes (which they aren't, there is a focus).

• I have added a sentence to each reception paragraph now. Hopefully it looks better. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done much easier to follow what the intention of the paragraphs are :) Sadads (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Throughout the article, you rely on various forms of the verbs "to be" and "to have" with the passive voice. These often make wordier sentences and can hurt the overall clarity of the information being communicated. I have begun working with some of this (such as with this edit) but generally, it can be easier for the author to fix the meaning. Make sure that the changes I make are reasonable, and I would suggest using the search function to find various forms of the verbs such as "is", "was", etc. to focus directly on those

• Ah yes, wordier sentences are one of my weaknesses. I have attempted to copyedit parts that seemed glaring. Hopefully it looks better. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, we are getting there. Keep an eye on my changes to make sure that I don't skew meaning. I will do at least 2 or three more passes through the article after I complete the first one in the next hour or so, Sadads (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds good, I will give it another pass too. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done The prose is looking much better, Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Second read

Lead

• "Smith invented Sartorias-deles as a fantasy world that gradually became populated by humans, who were then influenced by its indigenous beings enough to better themselves, largely eradicating problems like disease and overpopulation." Feels clunky or too complicated, but am not seeing an easy fix.

• I have copyedited it a bit. How does it look now? Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Did better than my initial attempts, good job.Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis

• "As Flauvic prepares to complete his victory, the Hill Folk come to Mel's rescue and turn him into a tree" - as with the king getting killed in the first part, does it just end there abruptly or does the novel tell the reader the (political) implications of that ending?

• Yes, the novel ends with Mel reflecting back on their victory. She marries Shevraeth and they are crowned king and queen. I have added this to the plot section. Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done exactly what was missing, summary was a little abrupt :P Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Publication

• "reflected a broader trend in YA fiction"- you never mention what trend (I suspect for longer books?)

• I've copyedited this a bit (the trend was simply YA fantasy's growing popularity, but I could see how that was being conveyed very well). Hopefully it looks better now. Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Yes that reads more clearly, Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a few small things to modify thi time. Otherwise, I don't have any other language/meaning concerns (besides the small fixes I made). Otherwise, I found this read to be much easier and clear. Good job Ruby2010! Sadads (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Organization and coverage

I have a few concerns about the breadth of the article, partly because of the nature of the source use.

• Most of the articles on novels that I have reviewed cover themes, style and the review section. Do the sources have enough discussion of these elements per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Article_body?

• Agree that those sections are vital for any literary article (and I definitely included them in my last GA, Lady of the Forest). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research on this YA novel, which doesn't really surprise me. I have access to various databases via my alma mater, and have added some content into a new themes and styles section. Will look for more to add. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, YA fiction just doesn't have as much conversation. But I thought I would probe just to make sure. The new section adds some value, we might want to consider how else to draw out more of that information from the current sources.Sadads (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've added some more to that section from the existing sources. It's not huge, but it's something. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I changed the title of the section (it describes more the style and genre of the novel, highlighting themes in the context of those). Good job at putting something together, YA novels are always fun to write those kinds of sections from. Sadads (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem like quite the entire sources available, take for instance the review listed at https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/CBPR/article/viewFile/17256/16203 . Check into that one.

• I've tracked that review down and will add it tomorrow. Nice find! Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent! Sadads (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Have now added in two reviews from BYU (again, nice find!). Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Glad those were of help, saw them listed on Google Scholar, Sadads (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, what about the nominations for awards listed at http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/Biblio/Biblio.html ? Can you use the nomination descriptions to support that discussion?

• I spent part of today trying to find independent mentions of those awards, and nothing came up that mentions this novel. This includes the awards' own websites. I am reluctant to add in this content as a result. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Sounds like a good judgement call. I didn't probe the award sites very thoroughly, but thought I would bring it up when I saw it. Sadads (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally, I think you hit all the major points of source materials, but I think I will do a search through my own databases (I am English grad student) and see if I can find some more. I am a bit concerned about breadth of information, but I know that children's lit has a really narrow field of scholarship and criticism: Can you expand the sections per the first comment? Also, make sure you check out those other possible sources, Sadads (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes that would be great if you could do a search using your sources. Anything helps. I will also keep looking (I've spent the last few months collecting reliable sources, however, so I'm not confident either of us will find more). Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I put in an ILL request for a review in "Voice of youth advocates" that was listed in our catalog. Hopefully, the librarians here can find me that :) Otherwise, I didn't see any other new listings, so we have exhausted the more traditional academic sources. I wonder if their are any reputable blogs or websites that have good reviews... More and more literary criticism on less prominent works is moving into more academically marginalized areas, Sadads (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've looked through the blogs I can find -- Tor.com for instance was a great resource. I did another search through JSTOR and the other usual suspects today and didn't find anything else, unfortunately. Impressed you found that youth advocates resource, and am excited to read it (no pressure on your part if it doesn't materialize). Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the look, we will call it quits on the sources for GA. We are covering the major topic areas. If the Voice of youth advocates one comes through I will send you a Wikipedia-email, and will get the PDF your way eventually, Sadads (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Have added it into the article. Thanks so much for it! Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Glad it helped. If you ever need another set of eyes for sources, feel free to ping me here or on gmail, Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to put the background before the plot that way the reader understands the context of the book?Sadads (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, agree. I have moved this section, as well as copyedited it and added some more content. Ruby 2010/2013 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 DoneSadads (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the publication history section, since their are so few editions, might be better treated as prose. Or at least needs to include a prose introduction to provide sufficient meaning to the reader (take for example Quicksilver_(novel)#Publication_history).

• Agree, have turned entire section into prose (if there were more editions, I might have stuck with the list per the Quicksilver article). Let me know if it looks OK. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Perfect, better than I did with the Quicksilver article :P That was my first fully fleshed article (and GA), so every-time I read it or go back to it, I am finding more and more things to fix. Sadads (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

• Book cover: Was that the first edition? How can you rephrase the caption to better communicate to the reader?

• Yes, this is the first edition (well, of the 2002 printing. It gets confusing when you consider that technically the first edition was released in 1997). I've tweaked it so hopefully it's a bit more clear for readers. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Yep much better, Sadads (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• You will need better description of the image at the end of the background/ beggining of the Reception section to ensure that reader understand: what the image shows; And secondly, why that particular image is representative; and last who produced that image.

• I've added the painting's name and artist, along with the year. Other than adding in "(pictured) to the caption though, I'm unsure what I can do to ensure readers understand. Isn't the caption enough? Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Done exactly what I was looking for. Just wanted to make sure that it wasn't out of context. Sadads (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

MOS and miscellany

Infobox

• The infobox says that the novel was preceded by A Stranger to Command, yet their is no mention of that novel throughout the rest of the article. How might you include that novel into the contextualization?

• Have added this to the publication section. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Navbox

 Done

• Not that you need to do this right now: but man will you have your work cut out for you if you decide to fill in the articles for the navbox. Have you read her other works? She seems to be rather productive, Sadads (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, there certainly are a lot! I've only read six of those, but may look into expanding/creating them some day. From what I've seen, Crown Duel has attracted the largest cluster of sources (which isn't much), so I'm wary that I won't be able to find enough research on the others. Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I know the feeling (so many good novels to write about, so little Wikipedia time!). I once tried to flesh out the articles for the series following Phule's Company, but ran into a source barrier. Surprisingly, individual novels in the Aubrey–Maturin series also have the same problem. Also, when I was reading a lot of Stephenson, the GA for Quicksilver (novel) was as far as I got because of the source barrier for that series as well. I would encourage helping start articles for other prominent authors though, even if you don't read the books. For example, it seems rather sad that there are so many redlinks on Template:JFCooper. I started writing those articles based on reading academic sources (but no plot summaries). Anyway, almost there for this article, so you can focus on others :) Sadads (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I understand completely. It would be so amazing if you could improve the coverage on the Aubrey–Maturin series; a lot of them could really take some tender love and care. I have a desire to improve Georgette Heyer's novels -- many of her articles are also in bad shape. But it always comes down to sourcing (and time). I just ordered a $35 book from Amazon on her, so hopefully that helps! Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Heyer! Thats great! Actually reading Frederica (novel) for a class this semester, called "Downton Abby in Context". Maybe I will expand the article some more, though am having a hard time finding good references in a quick google search....Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration comments

• I am going to take a break from the review for the afternoon and come back to it this evening or tomorrow, but these are a good start, if you want to start responding :) Sadads (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the review! I will get to addressing your comments later today. Ruby 2010/2013 21:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed all of your concerns to date. Please let me know if there is anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few more thoughts on a second read, but I think you should be done w/ those. Good job! When you are done, I would appreciate any thoughts you have on the quality of my reviewing process. Feedback always contributes to better work in the future, Sadads (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed all of your above concerns. You have been a great reviewer, truly! I hope you continue reviewing (and writing) literature GAs. While I've taken classes in English, my educational background is in history and educational administration. So, it was nice to be able to have this article reviewed by someone who knows far more about English literature than me! Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 02:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent, as long as I met your expectations. The deeper I get into the field, the less knowledgable I am feeling, though I feel like I know the WP:Novels articles on Wikipedia pretty well... Glad it was help and look forward to seeing similar books on GA in the future! If you need help working on anything related to literature let me know! Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have not yet read Frederica, but perhaps we could collaborate on it some day? My new book from Amazon (Georgette Heyer: A Critical Retrospective) has a lot of good content on it. Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I started a list of possible research on the talk page (Talk:Frederica_(novel)). I probably won't work on it right away, I started a draft at Draft:Novelist that seems to be high priority (the Novel article seems to be a mess, and there should be enough material on the production of novels and novelists as an identity), why don't we put off the work on Fredrica until I read it in class in a month or two ? Also, it would be nice to have someone else doing the writing and research on the novelist draft. Sadads (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Crown Duel. 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://archive.is/20130222030628/http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/SD/CrownDuel.html to http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/SD/CrownDuel.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140103030420/http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/SD/Concept.html to http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/SD/Concept.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140102202220/http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/Biblio/Biblio.html to http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/Biblio/Biblio.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20140101194505/http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/FAQ/FAQ.html to http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/FAQ/FAQ.html

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) 23:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)