Talk:Warriors: Omen of the Stars

references

Just a comment on the list of references - a lot are repeated refs to the individual books, maybe due to the large no. of articles that have been copied into this article? - if they were cleaned up ie. a ref no. with letters as a child lit article assessor, i would be inclined to increase from a 'c' to 'b' (of course, after it has a stronger reception section as well:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The repeats are references for separate webpages all with the same title. Generally, these are separate references for paperback, hardcover, and ebook release dates. As for reception, I'm not sure if much more exists. You're welcome to look, of course, as there may be reviews I may have missed. Brambleclawx 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that this will pass. I've currently added a tag (for over reliance on primary sources). However, I will give you seven days to address concerns. In addition, if you want me to fail it for now and work on it outside of the process before renominating, that is fine as well. Anyways, here are my comments:

• The lead does not adequately summarize several sections of the article's contents.

  Could you please explain which sections do not appear to be adequately summarized? Brambleclawx 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• At this point, reception. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Though the Warriors series has appeared on the New York Times Bestseller List, none of the novels in Warriors: Omen of the Stars has won a significant literary award." This information is either not notable "not won a significant literary award" or about the series, not the novel, and must be cited. Also, the bestseller list doesn't count as a literary award, so the two are not related at all.

  I'm not sure I understand this comment. Could you clarify what you mean here? Brambleclawx 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I mean that the fact that it has appeared on the bestseller list must be cited, but that on its own is not relevant to this article. The fact that this series hasn't appeared is not notable at all. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• In "Inspiration and Influences" these seem to be about the series as a whole, not this story arc at all, which would be better placed in the main series article than here.

  Cut. Brambleclawx 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• That section is also much too short to be a standalone level two header section.
• The publication history section just reads like a list of dates, which doesn't meet the "reasonably well-written" criterion of the good article criteria.

  How would you suggest re-writing this section? Are you proposing the use of a table? Brambleclawx 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• That section also is all primary sources--is there anything else you could cite to?

  I think the use of primary sources (the publisher's website) here is justified, as they are used only to reference factual information: publication dates. Brambleclawx 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• The plot summaries could probably use a copy edit for encyclopedic tone, repetition, and the like. It's not terrible, but the later ones especially are a bit all over the place.

  Done. More detailed feedback is always welcome, of course. Brambleclawx 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• The reception section is all over the place as well, with reviews being from all different books, meaning that the reader of the article gets no sense of coherency from the section whatsoever.

  The reception section notes two reviews for book 1, one review for book 4, then a general summary of a set of reviews for all six books by the same reviewer. The other way I can think of organizing this would be to split that last six into order by each book, but that would get repetitive. Do you have any suggestions? Brambleclawx 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Just make sure we know which books you're talking about. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• The themes section is much too short to be a standalone section, and I believe that it is unnecessary, as it is not like the themes have been discussed relatively widely or something (i.e. my articles Boys Don't Cry (film) or "A Trip to the Dentist"). This could all go in the reviews.

  Merged with reception. Brambleclawx 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good move, but at this point, the merging made it really choppy. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• The vague "reviewers" here aren't helpful, as these opinions are from one reviewer.

  Fixed. Brambleclawx 17:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

On hold for seven days. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that the comments have not been adequately addressed. The fixes, while they made the article better, really show that the article is nothing more than a list of dates, plot synopses, and a couple of reviews. The scope's not nearly wide enough. Also, I'm not sure why some of the plot synopses are so much longer than others. The primary sources tag is definitely still valid as 38 of the 44 refs are. Best of luck to you on this article and all your work on WP. I would also just like to say that it's not clear whether the reviews are positive or negative. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 21:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Just because of the primary sources thing

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

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

   Covers of individual books would be nice as well as some free files where appropriate

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: