Talk:Eragon

Archive 4 created

there has been no discussion here for a couple months, so I archived the previous talk page. Now we have a clean slate to discuss on! Spinach Dip 19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get this up to FA status? (eventually)

A simple question (if there's anyone out there who is interested).

I think this is the best candidate for FA in the whole Inheritance Cycle series, after some major work, of course.

This is what I'm thinking:

• Introduction: Needs to be expanded, and should include at least: 5/4/08

• some information on the following books. 5/4/08
• some information on number of sales. 5/4/08

• Publication History: Excellent start, but could use some expansion.
• Plot Summary: Should be shortened, important parts can be re-written. 5/4/08
• Reception: This heading can probably be doubled in size, since there are so many reviews available online.
• Adaptations: This is hardly a single paragraph. I'd like more on the film, something on the videogame, and something about the possibility of an Eldest film in the future.
• Publication Details: change title to 'editions', then include something about the changes made from the Paolini LLC version to the Knopf version.

Sections and things to be added:

• Characters: Only the major ones: Eragon, Brom, Saphira, Arya, Mutagh, Galbatorix and The Varden seem like a good selection for use on Wikipedia. Decided not. 5/4/08
• A Sales and/or Awards section: It's been on the NYT bestseller list for 120+ weeks, I think this deserves a mention somewhere. 5/4/08
• A couple quotes from Paolini himself: He's given several interviews. I'm sure we can find a couple quotes by him that would spice up the article.

Thoughts/opinions?

Spinach Dip 08:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think getting the article up to FA is a great long-term goal. However, I think a more realistic strategy would be to get this article up to GA, then go for a peer review and things. Getting the article up to GA shouldn't be tricky, given that we essentially have a model article - Eldest - to follow.

You've covered pretty much all of the main points in your list of things to do, though I would disagree with your suggestion of a characters section. The Characters in the Inheritance cycle page covers it, and there's a link to it in the Inheritance Cycle infobox at the bottom of the page. And GA Eldest doesn't have this section.

I'll put emphasis on the length of the article: the lead, background, reception, adaptations and publication details sections all need expansion; the plot summary needs some serious trimming (Eldest's plot summary is shorter, even though the book is considerably longer). These days I don't have much time for big elaborate expansions, but I'll try and help whenever I can. In the meantime, be bold and go for it. Una Laguna^Talk 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, GA is the first step; but I see nothing that should stop us from getting to A-class, and eventually FA.

If you're looking for something to do, helping with prose and keeping the vandals away would be increadibly helpful.

Work will start in a few days if all goes well! Spinach Dip 08:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Some potentially useful sources

These have some useful information in them which should definitely be incorporated into the article:

• Recorded audio of interview with Christopher Paolini, from Eye On Books
• Recorded audio of interview with Christopher Paolini
• "Philip Pullman, Tamora Pierce, and Christopher Paolini Talk Fantasy Fiction"
• Teen Reads interviews - particularly interesting is the fact that Paolini originally wanted Eragon to become a film, not a book.
• A set of interviews with Paolini from Shur'tugal

Una Laguna^Talk 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Began the major editing phase

Well, I got to it a little later than I intended, but I have finished 2/6ths of the major sections listed above. I will get to the others when I can. Any input, help with prose, or other related stuff would be greatly appreciated.

Spinach Dip 09:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. The last 2 edits (by an annonymous IP), were both my own. Sorry.

Spinach Dip 09:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Critism

Does anyone think it was a bit stupid critisising Eragon for being like Lord of the Rings in having the elven and Dwarven races with different languages, considering there are hundreds of fantasy's that are exactly the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.247.122 (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be stupid, but in a 'reviews' section, wiki is concerned with what people thought of the book, not whether or not those opinions are stupid. Spinach Dip 19:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's not a critic for the fact that Eragon was like lord of the rings because Tolkien's lord of the rings was inspired by the novel:The ring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpxp4 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

o_0 The Ring was written several decades after The Lord of the Rings. --13² 20:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing involving a 'ring' I know Tolkien was, for a fact, familiar with, was Wagner's Nibleung operas and the legends that inspired them. And, as a matter of opinion, I think the criticsim is fair. Paloni (or however his name is spelled) made all of his languages have a similar feel to Tolkiens, drawing from the same sources and such. I.E. Dwarvish is rough with runes, elvish is flowing and beuatiful... and it isn't just Paloni. Just about all fantasy fiction is guilty of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.150.165 (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How about Star Wars? http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1866494

Recent edits to plot summary

The plot summary appears to have been radically changed, from this to this. The new version is slightly longer (835 words instead of 815). There are a few issues with punctuation and the like which could be easily corrected. In terms of summarising the plots they're both pretty good, though this new one contains a few unnecessary details. However, instead of consisting of 7 good-lengthed paragraphs, it instead consists of nineteen, most consisting of just one or two sentences. This gives two problems: the plot summary now needlessly takes up much more space, and if we made this a GA candidate, the GA reviewer will note the short paragraphs. One or two one/two-sentence paragraphs is acceptable, but the number we have here makes it quite choppy and much less smooth to read. In its current state, it might even result in a GA fail.

Resolving these issues would give us a plot summary very similar to the one we previously had. Therefore I think we should reinstate the old plot summary. Any objections? Una Laguna^Talk 09:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've already reinstated it. The new one was needlessly wordy and had way too many details that weren't necessary. The short paragraphs were also a huge problem. It was better before, both in length and necessary details. ...Though the old version could still using some cleaning up and making it more concise as well. --13² 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)