| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some advice on how to get it up to GA class.
Thanks, Glimmer721 talk 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comments from Jappalang
- Please fix the three dead links in the article.
- Elizabeth Bird's article is not at the link presented.
Lede
- "It was originally published in hardcover ..."
- This is a fairly standard practice for novels...
- "It was originally ... It is the ... It introduces ..."
- There is a repetitive statacco here.
Themes
- What is the point of a single sentence section? Is there any more that can be found about themes? Publisher Weekly's Megan Whalen Turner certainly sees some more things into the items presented by the novel and the context of its portrayal.
Publication history
- "Citation needed" tag present
Cover
- PW: "the winner and 100 runners-up will also get an ARC of Catching Fire and a mockingjay pin (the bird featured on the books' covers)." How does this give rise to 'This is an image of the pin given to Katniss by the Mayor's daughter, Madge Undersee, as the image matches the description of the pin that is given in the book, except for the arrow: "It's as if someone fashioned a small golden bird and then attached a ring around it. The bird is connected to the ring only by its wing tips. I suddenly recognize it. A mockingjay."' This would be original research (and synthesis by using a statement in the story) since no source states the image on the book is that envisaged by the author.
Critical reception
- The section reads to me like the collection of blurbs on the author's homepage http://www.suzannecollinsbooks.com/.
- Personally, the premise of the plot strikes me as a copycat of several tropes and I am surprised not to read notable authors failing to spot this. But King's review does mention that and I wonder why this is not mentioned in the article, nor is his classification of the love triangle a standard trope in the genre. Without such criticism, King comes off as overwhelmingly positive over the title (despite the B). John Green also mentions the lack of originality, as well as the lack of power behind the words.
See also
- What is the point of putting these here without context? If they do have context (as pointed above), then they would have been linked earlier and thus not needed here.
Image
- File:Hunger games.jpg: While it can qualify as an identifying image, the rationale for why it can do so still needs beefing up. Furthermore, the size of the image should be reduced.
Sources
- How is jabberjays.com (fansite) a reliable source?
- What influence does the Cybil's Awards have? Is it a notable award recognised by the industry?
The overall balance of the article is a bit worrying: half is based on original sources (themes and plot, and the latter is 3/4 of that half). Jappalang (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. It will definitely help. --Glimmer721 talk 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)