Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magicians in fantasy

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Magicians in fantasy edit

Self Nomination Well, I've worked on it, I've put it up for peer review, if it needs more neither I nor the peer reviewers can see it, so I'm being bold and putting it up. Goldfritha 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved to "Magician (fantasy)"; the redirect is going to the page I meant. Goldfritha 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the bad typo fix earlier. Apart from that I'm not happy about this article yet, it attempts to cover a large and fairly diverse area from which it isn't easy to draw very general conclusions, therefore I have trouble with its comprehensiveness.

Some specific points:

I'd be happier if it stated early on, or in the title, something that made it clear that the article didn't cover fantasy art, film or computer games or alternatively the article could be expanded to cover these.
The article is very focused on 'Western' fantasy, I know this is what you get in the bookshop's fantasy section but I think that there should be some discussion of magicians in, for example, Far Eastern fantasy and in general a comparison of the similarities and differences between magicians in world fantasy would make an interesting section.
There should be more on the appearance of wizards in fantasy, for example the tendency to wear robes, stereotypical evil sorcerers, crystal balls, familiars hanging round, etc.
The sentence that starts 'Despite the great powers' is confusingly worded. Can it be made clear what it is that is 'equivalent to the effects of technology'? Also subjects shouldn't be mentioned in the intro that aren't covered later in the article.
'increasing tendencies of wizards to go on quests'. I assume you mean that in more modern books wizards go on quests more frequently than in older books?
The fantasy role-playing games section is very short. Are the wizards in these the same as in the rest of the article or in some way different? Explain what is meant by 'more clearly defined'? Do non-D&D games not get a mention? JMiall 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it, but I have a few questions.

I put in something abou their appearances, which is fantasy art, but I'm not sure what I could put in for fantasy film; are the wizards in film and written word so different?

I think that wizards in film and literature are very similar, given that film is so widely written about can you find any references about stereotypical magicians in film? It seems to me that generally where a film has stranger magic users it gets called horror etc.JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put in some examples from film. Is that what you were thinking of? Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about what Far Eastern fantasy you are thinking of? Most of the references I consult have found more similarity that discrepencies.

On the Far Eastern fantasy front I was thinking of things like wuxia where the extreme martial arts skills of the characters enables them to do magical things like fly or heal people which is rather different to a wizard like Gandalf say. I'm sure there must be other examples that I don't know about. Resorting to fairy tales for another example which probably doesn't exactly represent world fantasy you get things like:

Witches riding broomsticks
Indians/Aladdin riding a magic carpet
Baba Yaga flying in a pot

I suppose that some categories of world fantasy make up their own genre separate to what we normally think of as fantasy. For example if a book involves voodoo it would probably not be classed as a fantasy book even if in other respects it is very similar. JMiall 23:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have overestimated the scope of the article. It is not about magic in general; it is not even about fantasy magic in general (that one's Magic (fantasy)). Witches riding on broomsticks is a historical belief of people who actually believed in magic. Aladdin's magic carpet does not make him a magician, because it does not require study; magical objects are treated in Magic (fantasy). Baba Yaga is also not a magician because she does not study; she is a forest spirit whose powers are innate.

wuxia might fit, but I would have to research it. Goldfritha 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified the scope in the lede. I hope this also addresses your concerns about the "large and fairly diverse area" Goldfritha 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some info on wuxia. It's on the edges of suitable for this article, but I put in info to make it clearer. Goldfritha 02:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances -- working on

Reworded those two sentences; are they clearer?

Yes, basically wizards in RPG are wizards in fantasy; the enormous variety cuts across the genre boundries. Actually, I'm thinking of slicing the D&D references, because this article is about the magicians in general, and going into individual RPG does not necessarily make the concept clearer. Humm. . . Goldfritha 20:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done more. Goldfritha 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some short paras can be merged for better prose look. See also in text are bad style, try to transform into normal sentences. I have a feeling 'Wizards, magicians, and others specific to a work' section is rather incomplete, and besides it's a good idea to split lists off normal articles. I am hesitant to support as I am afraid the article is still incomplete - for example, no mention of fantasy-sci-fi crossbreads like Technomages, no mention of conepts like Mana... don't get me wrong, the article is impressive, but I am just not convinced it's ready.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added info about mana. Goldfritha 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose: I am inclined to agree with Piotrus, though it has alot of promise. The main issues are the prose and the comprehensiveness. There are other books which could do with a mention - Phillip Pullman's trilogy, the hilarious Bartimaeus trilogy, even the Thomas Covenant series (with the lords, esp. lord Mhoram continuing the wizardlike helper role, though the agelessness in this case is reversed). In terms of prose, the whole 2nd para could do with a rewrite: the first sentence, starting...."The magicians discussed in this article..." immediately makes me question its comprehensiveness. Why not just, "Magicians in fantasy literature...". Through the prose, I think there needs to be more use of words like "portrayed" or "depicted", some of the sentences sound like you are talking about situations as though they are real eg. Still, most fantasy wizards have a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic. I feel really bad I didn't see this on the Peer Review and point it out. I think all it needs is a thorough copy edit and some more comprehensiveness but overall I think it shouldn't take too long. I'll try to point out some more stuff. cheers Cas Liber 12:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other books which could do with a mention

There are lists for fantasy magicians. The purpose of this article is to treat the topic, not to itemize the instances. If a book should be mentioned, what is it that it is an example of that needs to be treated in this article?

I'll look at the style. Goldfritha 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is: who decides which books and examples to include? We need to be comprehensive, and it's just difficult for one editor to know and write about all examples in literature (although I am impressed by the refs you use, are they comprehensive?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be comprehensive on concepts, not on books. And if they are not comprehensive -- well, what's missing? You're another editor; what do you think is missing that needs examples? Goldfritha 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about not having endless lists of books (I will comment in a minute once I get this point out). I think some link to this page - Hero's journey - is needed as the article is descriptive but this latter page provides some literary critique and synthesis of info. more in a minute Cas Liber 10:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose issues "Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift, and most characters in their fantasy worlds can not learn magic." - this sentence is cumbersome - how about,"Still, most fantasy wizards are depicted as having a special gift which sets them apart from the vast majority of characters in fantasy worlds who are unable to learn magic." Cas Liber 10:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"~~...in common belief and in literature~~", belies suggests fact when were talking about ancient stories, many of which would have not been believed literally - what about "...have appeared in myths, folktales and literature throughout recorded history" Cas Liber 10:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~"..and as heroes, a more recent development." (too many commas; why not - "..and more recently as heroes themselves."~~Cas Liber 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Although they are often shown wielding the great powers, equal to or great than anything technology can produce, they seldom bring about major changes in societies, which in most fantasy worlds remain at a medieval level of technology.~~" - this sentence has grammatical errors which need fixing (removing first "the" and "greater" instead of "great")~~ -but could be written in a less clunky prose.

- all these are in the lead alone. Will keep going when I have a minute Cas Liber 10:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- On second thoughts this is quite time consuming - do you want me to have a go copyediting though it?Cas Liber 11:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hero's Journey"? Why? Magicians can appear in fantasy tales that are not, in fact, based on the hero's journey, and the hero's journey doesn't need even to be fantasy.

True, they can but the overwhelming majority of fantasy literature is modelled on the Hero's journey Cas Liber 03:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's disputed -- and there's still the question of why the hero's journey is suitable for the magician article. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your copyeditting it. I will take a look if you can't. Goldfritha 03:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flows better now. Goldfritha 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good luck with the article, I like the choice of subject matter. A few thoughts upon reading the article:

'History of fantasy wizards'- it's difficult to get a feel for the chronological history of fantasy wizards. The history section opens with a reference to Shakespeare's time (1664-1614), then jumps backwards to refer to Virgil (70-19BC) then forwards to refer to Merlin (1100s or earlier). What are the earliest instances of fantasy wizards / magicians? What time period does Gwydion of Welsh mythology belong to? Similarly, what time periods do the fairy tales Esben and the Witch, Molly Whuppie, How the Dragon was Tricked The Twelve Wild Ducks and The Wounded Lion belong to?
'History of fantasy wizards' - "Others, even in medieval romances, learned their abilities by study; Merlin, despite his half-human origin, studied with Blaise.[7] Still others did not have consistent stories told of them; Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name, but in Le Morte d'Arthur, it is said that "she was put to school in a nunnery and there she learned so much that she was a great clerk of necromancy".[8] Likewise, a hag can be either a witch or a kind of fairy.[9]" The last line seems disjointed / out of place, it does not seem to follow on from the preceding discussion in the paragraph.
'History of fantasy wizards' - "[...] Morgan Le Fay clearly shows her origins in an innately magical being in her name [...]" Should this sentence read "shows her origins as an innately magical being" rather than "in an innately magical being"?
It may help to provide context for some of the names which are mentioned in the article. I'm familiar with the subject matter, but many readers may not be. For example, in the section on Appearances, it would help to provide a few words explaining that Albus Dumbledore is in J.K. Rowling's series of Harry Potter novels (this is his first mention in the article): "The appearance of wizards in fantasy art, and description in literature, is uniform to a great extent, from the appearance of Gandalf to that of Albus Dumbledore." Likewise, it would help to provide some context for the first mention of Gwydion.
'Appearance' - "The association with age means that wizards, both male and female, are depicted as old, white-haired, and (for men) with long white beards." It may be better to say 'are often depicted' or 'are frequently depicted' rather than 'are depicted' since the statement is unlikely to hold true in all cases.

--Jazriel 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it -- got some of it in, but will have to ponder "History" a little more on how to structure it better. Goldfritha 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the "history" section was not tracing the historical development of the fantasy wizard; it was pointing out sources. I have retitled the header to make the matter more clear. Goldfritha 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - The writing style is far too relaxed for my liking, & not really up to encyclopedic levels. It needs to be a bit more scientific sounding, just up to highschool level. This problem may have occured because only a limited amount of people, such as the person who nominated, have worked on the article, so that their level of writing is throughout the entire article. This can be easily remedied by having a couple of professional copyeditors & rewriters go through the whole article & put in better prose. Other than that, I can see no reason why this article couldn't make FA status. This may not occur this time round, but if its small amount of problems are fixed, then next time it should be no problem... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting in light of requests to simplify it and make it more understandable. Goldfritha 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, don't listen to them, listen to meee! ;) By making it better prose, then it will become more understandable, by way of ease to read. At the moment the article sounds as if it's written in a weird way, that's why a couple of copyeditors need to swept through & bring it up to standard. Goldfritha, this is not the way to handle an FAC either. Making short defensive comments in reply isn't going to do any good for you , this FAC or the article. A posistive response would be "Yes, that seems like a good idea. Although there are requests above for the article to be made simpler (Which I suppose you knew), a good copyedit by an outside editor wouldn't hurt anybody." That my friend is why this article isn't going to make it this time around. Spawn Man 21:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.