Talk:Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

• Suggest removing "critically acclaimed"; it's best to be neutral about quality even for books in the literary canon. If you can cite sources showing it's "widely regarded as a classic", as for example can be said about A Wizard of Earthsea, then we can say that, but I don't think that's the case here.
• I also suggest reworking the first sentence to give the most basic facts first: "Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane is the second book in Suzanne Collins's The Underland Chronicles. Published in 2004, the novel has many elements of high fantasy. It focuses on a prophecy..."
• Avoid external links in the body text; you can cite them as sources.

  Are you talking about grade level equivalent? If so, I think this could become "grade level equivalent" (including the quotation marks). I'm not sure if it's an official term, but it's one Scholastic uses a lot. If it is official, drop the quotation marks.

  All I'm saying is that you're linking to an external website, and per the relevant guideline these "should not normally be placed in the body of an article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Done.

• The lead has some very minor information in it that doesn't belong there. I think you can cut the length of the audio book, and the readability/lexile score. Why do we care that Listening Library is a division of PRH? There's a link if the reader wants to know about them.

• Mostly done, but left Lexile alone. Your call. I was told to summarize every section in the lead as part of a previous GA experience. Lexile is a big part of "Publication" so that's why it's there.

• The plot summary is too long; see WP:PLCUT. I think you can cut all the prophecy itself, and just give an outline in two or three sentences. We're not trying to give all the information in the book; we just want to convey a concise overview. In addition the character list means that almost the whole article is a recap of the book. You could try eliminating the character section, or shortening it, and including some of that information in the plot summary -- this would avoid the problem (noted below) that we meet many characters in the plot summary before we understand who they are from the description. If you decide to keep the character section, I'd try to shorten the plot section even more, and move it above the plot summary so it helps explain who people are.

• I will trim the prophecy to about three lines and work them into the text (eliminating "Prophecy" section). As for characters, given that you ask "who are Ares, Boots, etc." below, and still want the plot summary to be as short as possible - I say we keep the "Characters" section. You may certainly move it before the plot if it suits you better.

• Trimmed.

• I'd add a sentence or two at the start of the plot summary summarizing the outcome of the previous book, since some readers will not have read that.

• Will do.
• Done.

• but another prophecy by Bartholomew of Sandwich: we haven't mentioned any prophecies yet, so why is this "another" prophecy?

• "Another" referring to how the previous book also had a prophecy. I'll clarify this.
• Done

• The quest group faces several challenges: you don't mention a group sailing off to find the Bane, only Gregor.

• Whoops, will also fix.
• Done.

• being caught in a whirlpool, encountering an island of carnivorous insects, and being betrayed by two shiners (fireflies) who were hired to provide them with light: suggest rephrasing to active voice: "...: they are caught in a whirlpool, encounter an island of..."

• I'll work on it, unless you want to.

• What is a "bond"?

  Linked to article with description. Is that good enough?

  I don't think so -- this section is an explanation, after all, so we should have relevant information here where possible. Is it necessary to mention it at all? The only time the word is used is when you mention Ares. If you do want to mention it, you could put the explanation in a footnote if it's difficult to do smoothly inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  I put it in as a footnote. Saying a character is someone's "bond" is like saying they're that person's husband/wife, so it's too important to drop.

• Who are Ares, Luxa, Temp, and Boots?

• See my comments on plot/characters sections.

• return to Regalia: Regalia has not been mentioned before.

• Regalia is where the humans live, where the quest starts. I will see what I can do to make this more explicit.
• Done?

• where Nerissa has just been crowned queen due to the crown princess's apparent death: none of this makes any sense to a reader unfamiliar with the books.

• I will fix this, although it's going to make the plot section longer. This confusion was the result of a previous plot trim.
• Used a footnote. Let me know if it's still confusing.

• Who are Andromeda and Howard?

• See above.

• What does "unique title" mean? And "unique cover art"?

  Unique = not shared by an edition in another language. Any rephrase suggestions?

  I don't think it's worth mentioning; it's almost universal that this is the case with foreign editions of books, so it's not really informative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  Fixed.

• You may not have sources for this, but we should include information about the development of the book -- Collins' plans for it, and any information about the writing and marketing of the book.

  All I have are sources about the development of the series as a whole, and a few that focus on the first book. I can include this info, but it will be largely repeated by other articles on the series. The author's "second child" got much less media attention than the other books.

  If you can find anything that's specifically about this book that would be worth including, otherwise I agree it's not necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey there, Mike Christie! Thanks so much for picking this up. I may be busy for the next few days, so I've quickly addressed what points of yours I can. I struck through everything I was able to do without any issues/comments. Let me know what you think. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied to a few points above. By the way, I noticed you struck a couple of points -- that's fine with me, but just FYI it's more usual to let the reviewer do the striking -- that way the reviewer can keep track of what is outstanding. Let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Found some time to go over things today. Let me know how it looks. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Much improved. I've read through and made one or two tiny tweaks. Promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for all your help! This has been the most hassle-free GA review I've ever been through. I appreciate your relaxed attitude and willingness to compromise. Happy editing! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)