![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changed the class from stub to C. There's a complete infobox, several of the template sections, and a variety of citations. Tbennert ( talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) <a target="_blank" href=" http://www.ebooksr.com/">Free PDF Ebooks Downloads</a>
This book may be more notable due to the way it was created and edited online in the public eye, than for the story itself.
Why is Card's opinion so important as to take up most of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.89.27 ( talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The originality of this novel's magic system seems to have come slightly under debate judging from the editing history.
First of all, I have no desire for personal opinions to be stated in the article, and I lack an opinion on the matter in any case. However, if a reader has some evidence of an actual debate on this topic or would like to compare and contrast this magic system with those of other specific existing systems, I don't think that would be an inappropriate addition to the article.
I have removed a "weasel words" phrase from the article making a claim that "it could be debated" that this system is essentially a rehash of an existing one(s), for the simple fact that it doesn't appear to fit guidelines and isn't particularly helpful since it doesn't back up this claim with actual information. "Anything" could be debated, but that doesn't mean it is being debated. Expound on this claim, or make the comparison in the article yourself! As a fantasy reader, I think this is worth mentioning. I just didn't like the editor's choice of words.
I do think a compare/contrast section might be relevant to the article, if a reader is convinced that this (alleged) fact is worth mentioning in the article. Thoughts?
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Changed the class from stub to C. There's a complete infobox, several of the template sections, and a variety of citations. Tbennert ( talk) 19:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC) <a target="_blank" href=" http://www.ebooksr.com/">Free PDF Ebooks Downloads</a>
This book may be more notable due to the way it was created and edited online in the public eye, than for the story itself.
Why is Card's opinion so important as to take up most of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.62.89.27 ( talk) 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The originality of this novel's magic system seems to have come slightly under debate judging from the editing history.
First of all, I have no desire for personal opinions to be stated in the article, and I lack an opinion on the matter in any case. However, if a reader has some evidence of an actual debate on this topic or would like to compare and contrast this magic system with those of other specific existing systems, I don't think that would be an inappropriate addition to the article.
I have removed a "weasel words" phrase from the article making a claim that "it could be debated" that this system is essentially a rehash of an existing one(s), for the simple fact that it doesn't appear to fit guidelines and isn't particularly helpful since it doesn't back up this claim with actual information. "Anything" could be debated, but that doesn't mean it is being debated. Expound on this claim, or make the comparison in the article yourself! As a fantasy reader, I think this is worth mentioning. I just didn't like the editor's choice of words.
I do think a compare/contrast section might be relevant to the article, if a reader is convinced that this (alleged) fact is worth mentioning in the article. Thoughts?