Talk:Wizard's First Rule

Tone - "Success" section

This article has a lot of likely accurate information, but the details are clouded by POV terms which indicate that the author is an active fan of the topic. I have nothing against the facts, but there are several items which are judging the topic in the Success section alone. Slavlin (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're a bit off-base, actually. None of the information in that success section has anything directly related to POV. It explains how the book began and informs people on how successful the book is, which I guess you could consider POV, but they are still facts. I have nothing to do with writing this page, but it seemed a bit odd that accusations of peacock terms were put on the page. Vilepickle (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That the distaste that I feel in reading the article comes from the positioning of the "success" section. With this section coming directly after the lead, the article comes off as overly fawning. If it were placed at the end of the article, it would be fine. Philhower (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I removed the first 2 paragraphs of the "Success" section that was present in this edit [1] as it almost an exact copy and paste from this article [2] with the only differences being edits relating to give specific dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slavlin (talk • contribs)

Good catch, I am going to try to work that information from that source back in now though as it is good information. Icewedge (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary Content

‘commentary’ as "teaser" of bad insight while treating this new as you would a crystal…chewing misplaced opinion on something harder than granite --- for the book didn’t become best seller for its details on boundaries and other mediocre obstructions, but something far clearer than that…the part I didn’t add…it is completely necessary to leave out writing on par with “the legends of the seeker” than with an honest summary of its book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.213.38 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about, but I will assume you are not a native english speaker and give your edits to the article and this talk page the benefit of the doubt. I will point out though, as I briefly alluded to in my edit comments, that the plot summary is not supposed to be a teaser for the novel. It's supposed to be a full summary, that reveals the thematic elements of the book. It would be great to also have a section that analyses the phylosophical and political aspects of the novel, but to my knowledge, no one has found any reliable sources to write a section on that yet. Regarding the plot summary, I'll point you to the Novels Wikiproject. In the meantime, feel free to improve on the summary, but not to remove it. - Runch (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree this is a plot summary not a teaser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkainoa123 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)