Talk:Mockingjay

Typo in review

A reviewer's typo "obstensibly" is marked "[sic]". Kinder just to correct the typo? Meaning doesn't change and it slows down the reader.

Dstlascaux (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

      Corrected. 24.15.117.78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

This is not a synopsis, but an exhaustive summary complete with spoilers. Let's try to clean it up a little? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.191.170 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this more acceptable?--Bt109 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:Spoiler. Wikipedia guidelines indicate that there is to be no warning for spoilers. –Schmloof (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I included no such warning. I was motivated by guidelines at WP:Plot_summaries to trim out a lot of unnecessary detail. Bt109 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant that as a reply to the original message by the IP. I think you've done a fine job cleaning it up. Thanks a lot! –Schmloof (talk • contribs) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis seems very unabalanced. It focusses disproportionately on the last part of the book and seems to have muddled or overlooked key parts of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.29.2 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I hate to sound snarky, but wouldn't it be nice if the synopsis was done by someone who has actually read the book (this is a pet peeve of mine: people who write synopses of books or films that clearly show a lack of familiarity with the book or film)? That might also solve the "focusses disproportionately on the last part of the book" problem, since there is a bunch more material, such as Peeta's warning (which probably fed into Coin's willingness to agree to and honor an amnesty as as condition of Katniss' cooperation) which might reasonably be expected to appear. Thus, far from being kept away from the action, Katniss' inability to act forces the propaganda film makers to film her in the field; Peeta is rescued when she figures out that President Snow will torture him more and more as each propaganda film is made and literally finds herself unable to continue making them; the decision to hold another Hunger Games for Capitol children is (IIRC) made after she has recovered, at least in the sense of being allowed to do things again, from her burns (and, hopefully, dies with President Coin, although I don't believe it was made clear whether it was held or not); Gale drops out when he realizes that Katniss, even accepting that he had nothing to do with it beyond planning that sort of attack much earlier, will always associate him with her sister's death, thus leaving Peeta the default winner of their rivalry. 65.102.152.199 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I found this review-I'll cite it later, after I finish the book, if no one else does first. http://shelf-life.ew.com/2010/08/24/mockingjay-review-spoiler-alert/ --Glimmer721 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Status

Since the book is now out and we have a summary and more info, this is really no longer a stub. I'm going to remove the notice at the bottom of the page and change it to start-class. --Glimmer721 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we still need some more info.

Arman Cagle ^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Article

I discovered this article. Could be used as references. http://shelf-life.ew.com/2010/08/31/mockingjay-ew-book-club/ --Glimmer721 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please Hanna morrissette (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Themes section

I've added in a themes section which we should expand. Hopefully this can become a featured article! Derild4921☼ 00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also added in an inspiration and orgins section. A bit repetive by the third book, but the bread and circues was new info. I'm trying to find the article where scholastic announces the title and cover. Anyone got that. Right now I have this this and this to use. Derild4921☼ 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "bread and circuses" thing was new to me, too. I'll need to but that under the section of Panem...where would I find a reference for that? --Glimmer721 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This one. Derild4921☼ 13:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll site it in this section. --Glimmer721 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please try to ad in some inforation under Promotion from this source. Thanks! Derild4921☼ 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is in dire need of pictures. Ideas? Derild4921☼ 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Added one of the author. Derild, I sure do hope the refs in the lead that you deleted were contained elsewhere in the article… Airplaneman ✈ 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I made sure to add the information first. Derild4921☼ 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional Reviews

Here's a list of reviews with links. Some we have, some we don't. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis?

What the hell happened to the synopsis section?--14.52.73.159 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad Reception

I don't see any negative reception in the "Reception" section. It seems pretty unbalanced to say the least. The worst I see is in the introduction of the article which notes that some critics didn't enjoy the loose ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.66.88 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mockingjay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

The article's content, prose, and layout all comply with MOS policies. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses plenty of reliable third-party sources, and does not contain any original research. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article is very thorough in its coverage of all expected aspects of the topic, but does not contain any trivia. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article holds no bias towards or against its subject. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

While vandals appear to flock to these Hunger Games pages, none of the edits going back to early January appear to constitute an edit war. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The single image used in the article is vital because it illustrates the main cover of the book which is covered. A free version does not exist, and the image has a valid license and rationale provided, so it qualifies for usage in the article under fair use laws. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through this article, I feel it satisfies the GA criteria for Literature articles. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical Reception

There's been some changes through time to the Critical Reception section that are quite subjective. The reception of this particular book has been almost the same as the other two books in the trilogy: mainly positive reviews. I've read all the review posted here for the three books and I fail to see how the reviews can be "mixed" when they're clearly generally positive. Where are the negative reviews or truly mixed reviews? I think it's important to note (and probably add to the article) that the fan reception to the final book has, indeed, been a bit mixed (particularly the final chapters and ending). While critical reception has been generally positive, fan reception is the one that has been less enthusiastic than the rest of the books of the trilogy and I found relevant to tell the difference because someone here is clearly thinking the reception from the fans and public is the same as the critical reception from professional critics.--Leatherface66 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting and I was sincerely hoping it would be sourced but the intro mentions fan reactions being mixed and again so does the reception section but there are no sources for any of this, it seems plausible but it could be entirely made up and Wikipedia is supposed to include sources for these things.

If there is an editor actively maintaining this article I hope they will remove the unsourced sections or mark them as citation needed if it seems like it might actually possible to find reliable sources of fan reactions. I'd remove them myself but I doubt the edit would last, since the books have such a wide fanbase and people are likely to keep re-adding unsourced information and claims about fan reaction the article would probably need to be protected (I recommend edits require approval rather than a complete block, I hate when the encyclopedia that anyone can edit locks articles). -- 109.77.113.86 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with your appraisal. I don't know exactly when the assertions about fan reaction came into the article, but it was sometime after the Good Article review above in February. They are completely unsourced and unfounded, so I have removed them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot Synopsis

Gloss, I'm glad to see there's a way to discuss subject matter issues "outside the arena." First, I apologize for any clumsiness. I am new here and excited about being a participant so please bear with this newbie and help me do it right. The plot summary that was there before left out several major critical areas that are needed to understand why everyone is doing what they're doing. The fact that the rebellion is being subverted is THE reason Katniss makes her climactic decision at the end, so we have to know that Coin is seizing power. Then Peeta, a major character in the entire series, is barely mentioned except to say he's recovering from his hijacking - without explaining what, when or why that was done (the man who loved her had been weaponized to kill her - a huge plot device that shouldn't be ignored). The term "hijack" as a term for brainwashing was invented for the book, as was the term "propo," but both terms were used in the summary without defining them. I corrected those omissions. Katniss does not make her decision to shoot Coin at the moment when she shoots, but earlier that morning in the meeting to vote on continuing the Hunger Games. I understand the need to keep it short, so I shrunk my first version considerably, as you see, while still including these clarifications. I hope you'll see the value in adding these essential plot elements. Peregrinacion (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mockingjay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //onourmindsatscholastic.blogspot.com/2010/07/hungry-for-mockingjay-giveaways.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)