Talk:The Lost Hero/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) 23:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is my first GA review. I'll get started on it as quickly as I can. I enjoy Riordan's books and have read this one. I will be asking a mentor to stop by before I finish the review. I have 28 good articles myself, so I'm not entirely new to the process. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll do my best to answer them. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

It's a good start, but the article is going to need a significant amount work to be brought up to Good Article level. I should probably warn you at the outset that I tend to overexplain things, so this will doubtless look more daunting than it is.

The prose for a good article is supposed to be clear and concise, but in many places here it is not. The article as a whole could use a thorough copyedit, both for style and for spelling and sentence structure. To take the Plot section's first paragraph as an example:

• Sentence two: "He finds himself sitting next to Piper McLean, his apparent girlfriend, and a boy, Leo Valdez, Jason's apparent best friend on a field trip to the Grand Canyon." The "on a field trip to the Grand Canyon" is tacked on to this sentence, and the antecedent would appear to be Leo, not the entire trio or even the entire class.
• Sentences three and four: "While they are there, storm spirits attack the three and their supervising teacher, Coach Gleeson Hedge, who reveals himself to be a satyr, helps fight the storm spirits, although he ends up captured by them." Again, this sentence tries to do too much, and isn't quite constructed correctly. I'd stop after "satyr", and then do a new sentence that simply says that the four fight the storm spirits, but the coach is captured by the escaping spirit, though it should probably appear after the next sentence about Jason, though without the "Meanwhile", since the sword is used before the coach is taken.
• Sentences five and six: "At the end of the battle, a flying chariot pulled by two pegasi lands next to them carrying two people; Annabeth and a boy named Butch. Annabeth came to the Canyon due to a vision from Hera, telling her to look for the "boy with the missing shoe", which refers to Jason, who is missing a shoe, enraging Annabeth who believed that boy to be Percy." This actually occurs after the battle is over, not at its end. The sentence misuses the semi-colon, but it's the final sentence that has many issues, the biggest of which is that it doesn't explain who Percy is, and thus why Annabeth is upset.

Here's what this paragraph might look like after being edited for clarity:

Jason awakens on a school bus, unable to remember who or where he is, or anything about his past. He is sitting next to Piper McLean and Leo Valdez, who call him by name and say they are his girlfriend and best friend respectively. All three are part of a class field trip to the Grand Canyon, and after they arrive, storm spirits attack the trio and their trip leader, Coach Gleeson Hedge. In the ensuing fight, Jason surprises everyone, including himself, when one of his coins turns into a sword which he uses to battle the storm spirits. Coach Hedge, who reveals himself to be a satyr during the fight, is taken captive by a fleeing spirit. After the battle, a flying chariot pulled by two pegasi arrives to rescue the trio, but one of the people in it, Annabeth, is upset when she discovers that her missing boyfriend, Percy Jackson, is not there as she expected. Annabeth, seeking Percy, was told in a vision from the goddess Hera to look there for the "guy with one shoe", but this turns out to be Jason, who had a shoe destroyed during the fight.

The Plot itself has issues. Even though the Greek and Roman material is touched on in the Development section, the plot should make clear in the second paragraph that the camp and deities are Greek, and even though we know later that Jason is a son of Jupiter and all along that he tends to think of Roman names rather than Greek ones, he's still assumed to be a son of Greek Zeus at that point, not Roman Jupiter. The final paragraph is especially problematic, because the Roman camp is not named in this book. Calling it "Camp Jupiter" is premature; the name isn't given until the next volume in the series. You'll also want to see WP:MOSFICT for general rules about writing about fiction: one key thing is not to use past tense in plot description.

I think a better organization for the article would be to move the "promotion" section out of the "Development" section and into the "Release" section. I would also split out a "Critical reception" section from "Release", as these are two different things.

Issues with these sections:

Development and promotion:

• The second series came about in part because the first was so successful, not just because he had counted up how many myths he'd explored over the first five books. The source itself says "He also conceded that he wanted to 'give Percy Jackson fans what they still want'."

• This wasn't quite what I was looking for. Instead of saying "immensely successful", which you don't support, a better way would be to state a supportable fact, such as the number of millions of copies the first series had sold at that point (something like 20 million, I think one of your sources says), and tie it to the "what they still want" quote. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the Claire Kirch PW source misspells Annabeth as "Annabel", and I don't believe Grover actually appears in this book, so you'll need to reword the reused secondary characters bit to fit both the actual book and the article.
• The section never explain that the first series used first-person narrative from a single character—Percy's—point of view; that needs to be established to make the clear why the change to rotating third person was such a big change.

• No mention of "first person". If you use "third person" as the way to describe the new method, you should use the same nomenclature for the other. I'll be rewriting this one to show what I mean. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Call the publisher "Disney-Hyperion", at least the first time you mention it: that's its name.

Release:

• Try to get the 2.5 million first printing closer to the hardcover, because it was 2.5 million hardcovers that were printed, not ebooks. (I don't think the sources mention what the audiobook numbers were.)

• You didn't change this sentence at all, and it needs fixing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Riordan's website is not a reliable source for bestseller information. You need to cite the actual bestseller lists, as you do with the New York Times, though that one should have its full name (Children's Chapter Books), as should the others; also, the two NYT citations between them do not add up to 14 straight weeks at number 1 on the list. Try to find a source that says how long it was at number 1, and maybe add more up-to-date info. I don't know why IndieBound is considered notable enough for inclusion here.- Nearly done
• Just because the article shows him signing one copy of the book doesn't mean he only signed one copy that day. Absent more definitive information, this needs to be deleted.
• "Despite the number of bestseller lists": sales and reviews are two different things. When you turn this final paragraph into its own "Critical reception" section, please drop that initial phrase.

• Unfortunately, you replaced it with a completely unsourced contention that all of his previous (Percy Jackson) books were well-received, which amounts to original research if you have found all these completely favorable reviews, and didn't address the point below. In fact, you made it more problematic by giving it such additional emphasis. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• You say the book received "mixed reviews", yet you only cite three: Publisher's Weekly, which is positive; Kirkus, which is negative; and Seattle Times, which is positive but brief, and more an article/interview than a review. You need to check (and cite) a larger base of reviews to safely make this general characterization. In addition to PW and Kirkus, children's books are reviewed by professional publications that cater to libraries as well as some bookstores: Booklist, School Library Journal, Voice of Youth Advocates (VOYA), and Horn Book, for example. (Some of these are partially quoted in The Son of Neptune, but they're unusable in that context; you need the whole review.) You can probably find some newspaper reviews beyond the Seattle Times out there as well to balance out the others. Try for at least one more of these publications and another newspaper; five or six reviews should give a more robust reception section and overall characterization.

I still need to specifically address other segments of the GA review requirements, such as images; I'll do that more specifically this weekend. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! Although I have done one GA before, I'm not exactly an expert on this seeing as both the articles I've done were horrible before I started and I thought the level I had gotten to was enough :P. Anyways, thanks for the advice. I've started editing it based off of your reccomendations and will continue to do so. Thanks! --Kangaroopowah 21:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the last two sentences of the development section's first paragraph does explain the change in view. --Kangaroopowah 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

True, that section does explain what the new method is, but does not state what Riordan had used before, which is what I'm looking for. You'll need to add his original style into Development.

I'll be waiting to hear from you when you've finished your edits based on the above comments, after which I'll do a more thorough review of the major Good Article categories (it was used for your last GA nomination). How many days do think your edits are likely to take? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

2 days tops. Maybe even by the end of today! -Kangaroopowah 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry bout this but I will have literally no editing time for the next two weeks... can we put this on a hiatus? --Kangaroopowah 04:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent) I did manage to get some stuff done though so I've crossed out what I've think I've done. Feel free to modify these strikeouts if necessary. --Kangaroopowah 13:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Concluding comments

With regret, I'm about to close this review as not being of Good Article quality at this time. I'm waiting for my mentor to check my work, but I doubt there will be significant disagreement with my decision. There were two primary factors: first, the inability to address further changes for the next two weeks, and second, that the few changes that have been made introduced as many problems as they solved. I've noted issues with a few of the items in the introductory comments that you've struck out as having been completed.

Before you bring this back for another nomination, please make sure it has a good copyedit; I recommend asking the Guild of copy editors to give this a thorough review, being sure to specify that you are aiming to make this a Good Article. If you can, make all the other suggested fixes first before asking them in, because they'll check some details, like the Manual of Style rules, where I haven't taken the additional time to check, since that's something they'll do as part of their copyedit.

I'll be making some edits to the article itself, probably later today. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Read over the review and skimmed the article, and BlueMoonset's concerns appear sound; don't see anything to add. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose requires considerable work to meet the "clear and concise" guideline; spelling and grammar is sometimes incorrect. Article was not fully checked against MoS given the other issues preventing passage.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources you have seem generally reliable, but some statements are not sourced and in places seems to be original research (e.g., the number of weeks spent at #1 on bestseller lists, the types of reviews received by the previous series)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   While you seem to cover all the necessary areas, the coverage is inadequate in some of them (Critical reception section), and the details are sometimes oddly chosen (why does bestseller information stop in early 2011, when this was nominated in spring of 2012)? Articles should be up to date.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   There seem to be a few WP:PEACOCK words that don't belong, and the review universe is so small it's impossible to tell whether WP:UNDUE weight is being given to the favorable or unfavorable reaction.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The one image, of the book cover, meets the criteria. You might want to consider adding an image of Riordan to the article. The one from his bio might go well in the Release section, since it talks about him there. (It won't fit in the Development section, because you're not supposed to put text in between images, or an image and the infobox.) As it's on Wikimedia Commons with proper CC licensing, usage would not be an issue.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

— BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)