Talk:The Final Architecture

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Is Grimdark Magazine RS? See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 383#Grimdark Magazine..

VickKiang 01:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang: Thank you for the feedback! I saw the post on the noticeboard, but it was a rather small discussion. I agree it probably shouldn't be used to justify notability, but I do think that an article from Grimdark Magazine could be used with proper in-line citations in the "reception" section of a novel, generally. (As in WP:RSOPINION). While it certainly doesn't have the same reach as a magazine like Locus, it seems fine for critical reception and opinion. Would be open to hearing other opinions, though. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Anyways, this is a very minor issue, as the article is well-written and notable to be a decent C-class one. Well done! VickKiang 21:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Focus on first book?

It seems odd to me that this article that’s theoretically about a trilogy only covers the first book. (The article says a little bit about the second book in the Reception section, but essentially nothing about the third book.) Should this article’s title be changed to Shards of Earth? Or could someone add material about the second and third books? — Elysdir (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page but I have only read the first book, so I have not yet written a plot summary for books 2 or 3. It seems like there are not enough reliable sources to make each book their own page, but combined there are plenty of sources for a page on the trilogy. If you have read books 2 or 3, or even if you have a copy and you can make a short "premise" section, please do so! If not, I'll get around to adding a summary whenever I read them. Thank you for the feedback! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]