Talk:Divergent (novel)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gloss (talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. After a first look, the article is in good shape. I'll have some comments up here within the next few days. Pinging the nominator @Sadads: to make sure you're ready to go with this (being that it's been nominated since June and it's now the end of October). Gloss 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something to begin with: the external links summary shows that some of the links in the references have had their URL altered. Not a big issue but if we could get the updated links into this article, that'd be a good start! Gloss 18:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will do the external links soon! Glad to see that someone has finally picked up the article! Note: I have not been updating the article to meet more recent press coverage and scholarhip , so its likely going to be missing some of these recent items/thoughts from scholars. Moreover, I am really busy from now until around American thanksgiving, so I might be a bit slow to respond to some of the changes. Sadads (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done urls have been refined, Sadads (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! In response to your note, I don't believe too much has happened in terms of recent press coverage since the nomination, but we'll figure that out. Gloss 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film info

One spot I do see that could use some more information is the film adaptation section. Currently it's filled with casting information, but information on how box office sales went and perhaps a line about DVD release would help to complete the section. Gloss 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Took sources from the film page and updated to make it more well rounded discussion. It would be great if you helped me double check those :) Sadads (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gloss:: sorry I didn't respond sooner. On-Wiki activities other than WP:TWL have been hard to fit in, and I have been missing things on my watchlist (really need to clean up the 8000+ pages on there...).

The note about the film is a good point; at the time I had been working right before the film's release, I was running with what was available. I don't have much time this evening, or in the next couple days, but I think I might be able to use some time Friday? Or Maybe mid-next week. If you have any other concerns for other GA criteria, it would be great if you could identify those before then, so I can have a nice combination of low hanging fruit and research/writing/summary to work on.Sadads (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we've both been pretty busy, as expected. I will do my absolute best to get some more comments up by mid-week. Gloss 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Specific concerns

In the lead, the final sentence makes me believe that Summit Entertainment purchased the media rights as well as the film's production all occurred in 2013. From looking at the Divergent movie article, it looks like the rights were purchased in 2011, so please clarify that.
Done also, expanded to make more clear the effects of the film. Sadads (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Roth wrote the novel while on winter break in her senior year[6] and the movie rights sold before she graduated from college" - probably could remove "from college" - it just sounds a little repetitive given the previous sentence and the beginning of this sentence.
Done Sadads (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the plot section, the word "tester" .. is that a real word? Ha, I'm not sure but "test proctor" would make it a little clearer.
Done Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Peter, Drew and Molly" - just missing a comma
Done Generally, I don't approve of oxford commas, being a staunch non-conformist to picky grammar concerns, but there is a time and place for fighting :P No, just kidding, the image of a "Drew-and-Molly" is rather amusing. Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Once the rankings are announced, Peter (who came second) is jealous of the first-place finisher, Edward, and, under cover of night, Peter stabs Edward in the eye with a butter knife." a lot of awkward sentence turns - maybe reword it a little "Once the rankings are announced, Peter (who finished second) becomes jealous of the first-place finisher, Edward; under the cover of night, Peter stabs Edward in the eye with a butter knife." or something similar
Done Ugh thats an awful sentence. Thanks for catching it, Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the Style section, one author is introducer with her first and last name while the next is only introduced with her last name. Is "Nolan" the author's commonly known name? Or should her full name be written out as well?
Done, Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The book debuted at #6 on the New York Times Children's Chapter Books Best Seller list on May 22, 2011,[24] and remained on the list for 11 weeks.[25] It also spent 39 weeks on the Children's Paperback list in 2012,[26] reaching number one." just for consistency purposes, it should either be #6 and #1 or number six and number one
Done Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It is still on the list at the end of January 2013." - this should probably be updated as it's now November 2014, to say if it is still on the list, or to say when it fell of the list
FixedSadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As of March 2013, "book sales are now over 2.6 million copies for both novels combined, and both titles are HarperCollins most successful e-books ever in regards to sales."" - just throw in a mention of where that quote came from.. who said it?
Fixed Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The awards and nominations section is only one line (two sentences) long - that probably doesn't need to be in its own section, so the "awards and nominations" heading can probably be removed.
First line of the film adaptation section, again if you could add in the time frame of when Summit purchased the rights to the movie.
DoneSadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was anyone else considered for the role of Tris? We get information on other candidates for Four, so it would be interesting to make a small note of anyone else considered for Tris, if that information is available.
Done opting out of adding more, going to thin. If someone wants to research this more, they can explore on the article proper.Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in that section contains information on the film's release and information on casting. I think the paragraph just needs to be flipped. It would make a little more sense to read about how the casting was rounded out before finding out when the film was released. Gloss 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the references do not have the work or publisher wikilinked, as well as the three works in "further reading"
- I've fixed some of these references. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now! Gloss 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant @Gloss:! Thanks for all the great feedback, it flowed past my radar again this week...been a rough personal week with lots of stress. I got on the other night to work on responding to the review, but ended up helping a new user on Wikifying Behind a Mask after the additions/expansion came across my watch-list. By the time I was done, I didn't have the mental capacity for doing the research/writing related to the film. I don't have any grading in the next week and a half, so I should have some time soon! Also thanks @StewdioMACK:! Sadads (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss:: Did an initial pass based on your comments. Significantly expanded/refined the adaptation section to be more accurate to the film's release and experience. Going to do another pass at sources for awards. I am imagining that there are a few more out there post-film. Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds likely. Good to hear! Thanks for making all of those improvements, the article is looking good. Gloss 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: Not finding anything but the Connecticut's "Nutmeg award" for 2014... not sure if that is worth mentioning.... Fiancee wants me to go do things with her, so going to take off. Are you planning on doing a second pass for things? Or are you feeling good with this version? Sadads (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a second pass. You added two red links to the page in the recent edits, so I was wondering about those (Carrie Hughes, USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books list). Also, one of the books you added is actual a link to the film version (The Dream Catcher). Gloss 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass

Fixed the links: red links are okay, as long as they are pointing to something that is actually new. I will probably create the Dream Catcher one in the next few days. Sadads (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply red links are not okay. But "USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books doesn't seem like the name of an article likely to be created soon. I will double check the article soon before passing :) Gloss 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, some publishers and works are still not wikilinked. New York Times seems to be the biggest one, but every reference should have their publisher or work wikilinked if an article exists. Gloss 04:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done fixing: a bit worried about WP:Overlink with the publishers, Sadads (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some not linked: 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

Refs 37 and 38 both use The Reel Chicago, but one says "The Reel Chicago" and one says "reelchicago.com" - that one should probably be changed to "The Reel Chicago".

And finally, please add access dates to the references missing them and keep them all in one consistent format (either MONTH DAY, YEAR would probably work best since MM-DD-YYYY is only used three times). The following refs need attention: 6, 24, 25, 26, 37, 46, 47. Gloss 05:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: Feel free to fix those: I don't have any objections. Reference consistency has never been a strong suite for me, Sadads (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is your nomination. The comments a reviewer makes are usually for the nominator to take care of. Gloss 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloss: Sorry, didn't mean to be offensive; but when I notice more formatting/style concerns when I give reviews, I usually go ahead and do them, especially if it looks like something the author doesn't do well. The changes are done, as best as I can tell (that or I am just not seeing what you want me to fix).

As a passing thought: none of these reference formatting concerns are actual GA criteria, btw (note Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-2), thus shouldn't be something required of page for passing.

The rest of the review has been rather productive! Thank you soo much, and sorry its taken so long to get done. I wish I had more time to do reviews of GAs. Its been a while, and every time I start one, I seem to loose track of time. Sadads (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting concerns are absolutely part of the GA criteria. Your link is to a footnote about the prose's MoS, and has nothing to do with references. But, will check back here soon. Gloss 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]