Talk:Gregor the Overlander/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ  -US 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox
I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.


 * Peer Review tool
 * Lead it too short, article this size should really have to sentences
 * Heading should not start with "the" - just a suggestion


 * Copyright violations Tool
 * No issues found, ony triggers on quotes. ✅


 * Disambiguation links
 * No issues found ✅


 * External links
 * No issues found ✅

Well Written

 * "in 2003, and is" does not need the comma
 * "At first Gregor" should be "At first, Gregor"
 * "immediately, and is" does not need the comma
 * "her brother, and" and again no comma
 * "a common themes" either "common themes" or "a common theme"

Sources/verifiable

 * I get that the plot summary does not need to be sourced, but the "Propecy of Grey" should, especilly the interpretation of the propecy. Looking at the characters section I believe that should be sourced too?
 * Sources use two different date formats "August 15, 2015" and "2008-07-23", pick one format and make it consistent please.
 * Reference 2 does not list the book, not sure how it can be used to source anything in the article?
 * Same for Reference 12
 * The sentences that start with "The reviewer stated" does not have a source listed for it.
 * Is "hogwartsprofessor.com" a reliable source?
 * No source for the Texas Bluebonnet Award
 * There should be no direct link in the text to "children's literature".

Broad in coverage

 * Seems to be a bit heavy on the plot stuff, three of the four sections are really about the plot of the book, only one is not either a plot or interpretation of the plot.

Neutral

 * It does list reviews that were more critical of the book, looks to be okay ✅

Stable

 * Not really seeing anything in the history, the odd bit of vandalism but that's about it so yes looks stable. ✅

Illustrated / Images

 * Appears to have the appropriate fair use tag ✅

- So since this is not the longest of articles my review was pretty quick. Only a few issues here, mainly sourcing challenges that need to be addressed. I am putting the article on hold for 7 days to allow for improvements to be made.  MPJ  -US 04:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * @MPJ-US -- Okay, took care of some things. Everything under the Well written section -- fixed (man, I'm bad at commas :) ). Pretty much everything in Sources/Verifiable also done. You were right about Source 2 -- literally no clue what that was supposed to be there for. Ref 12 references Pub Weekly's definition of starred review, but I also found a copy of the review, so I added that. Same for "reviewer stated" and Bluebonnet award. There are just a couple of things I'm unclear about how to handle.
 * Not sure what your comment about the lead means, sorry. Could you clarify?
 * Sorry that should be "two sentences".
 * I sourced the prophecy bits, but they (and the character stuff) are all direct paraphrasing of the book's text. Should the book be cited after every section/bullet?
 * I think so.
 * Semi-side note: I agree that there is a lot about the plot here, and I'd like to create a section with publishing info. Only problem is, though I have personally seen several different editions, I can't find any sources for that info besides on ISFDB and bookseller sites -- which are apparently not Wiki-worthy sources. The fact that there's an audiobook, at least 3 separate paperback editions, and editions in several other languages seems important enough to note; I just can't find proof of their existence. Any ideas?
 * You have information in the lead, that's sourced etc. That should be included in one of the sections of the body (and the sources used there) so that the lead is a recap of the article, not the only place information is mentioned. I see that you have references for the audiobook there. And I would think that an amazon.com source would be acceptable to verify the existence of other edition, but based on your comments that's been rejected in the past?  MPJ  -US 03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the hogwartsprofessor source: Normally I would not trust a site with a name like that, but the author and site seem to be fairly reputable, despite its name. The author is a literary analyst who focuses on J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, primarily, and the site is where he publishes many of his reviews/analyses. (He actually has a page here on Wikipedia.)
 * I am willing to take him as an "industry expert" then. MPJ  -US 03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * user:2ReinreB2 - I hope my notes above helped clarify stuff?  MPJ  -US 03:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @MPJ-US -- Yes, thank you. I will get to drafting a publications section. After rereading these guidelines, I think you're right about an Amazon source being acceptable, so I'll go looking (hopefully tomorrow). I'm still a little fuzzy on the lead bit, though. Are you saying it needs to be longer? Because it is already 2+ sentences. If it's too long, I will just cut the sentences after "It was featured..." and move them into the body of the text. Thanks again. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it only had one paragraph when I started the review, two paragraphs are appropriate so that's okay now.  MPJ  -US 02:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @MPJ-US -- Ok, Publications section is finished. I am satisfied with all the changes, though sometime in the future I might try to find more sources supporting the character information, so the book is not referenced 15 times. Is there anything else you think should be done? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking through the updates I think they're appropriat and does help round out the article. That's really all I can see, so I am passing it for Good Article, congratulations .  MPJ  -US 18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @MPJ-US Thanks very much for you help! Good luck with the GA and Wiki Cups. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)