It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the
2017 WikiCup.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I think the prose should specify how Riordan announced the book - through his website.
The promotional tour was occurred "the month of release", but the month is not specified here. This won't be an issue if the publication info is relocated to this section from the "Release" section as suggested below.
"On the next day, the first chapter was released online." On isn't needed here. Was this chapter free? Was it on the official website or somewhere else?
" the first chapter of Annabeth " This isn't clear. Every other mention of Annabeth in the article is the name of a character. What does the first chapter of a character mean?
The pipe link for Coach Hedge is incorrect.
The plot summary is well written, but parts of it won't be clear to readers unfamiliar with the series. I think a brief introduction (maybe a paragraph) introducing the basic premise and recapping the previous novels' events would be very helpful.
There is no context for "Hazel successfully learns to manipulate the Mist." Mist is mentioned again under Hazel's character entry, but it's still very vague. Is there something Mist can link to, or an easy way to explain it? If the only mention of it in the plot is that she learns to use it, maybe it could be omitted entirely?
"Later, a paperback edition " this sentence ends with the release date, so the word later isn't needed.
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, I believe "Development and promotion" should be renamed "Publication history", "Major characters" should be "Characters". The first paragraphs under "Release" should be located under "Publication History". "Critical reception" subhead should be a level up and just "Reception".
I did not nominate this article, but I was passing by and fixed your points about the image and the referencing problems. --
2ReinreB2 (
talk)
04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the corrections. The lack of a negative isn't too surprising - when a series gets this far along, bad reviews only pop up when an installment completely misses the mark. Nice work.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the
2017 WikiCup.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I think the prose should specify how Riordan announced the book - through his website.
The promotional tour was occurred "the month of release", but the month is not specified here. This won't be an issue if the publication info is relocated to this section from the "Release" section as suggested below.
"On the next day, the first chapter was released online." On isn't needed here. Was this chapter free? Was it on the official website or somewhere else?
" the first chapter of Annabeth " This isn't clear. Every other mention of Annabeth in the article is the name of a character. What does the first chapter of a character mean?
The pipe link for Coach Hedge is incorrect.
The plot summary is well written, but parts of it won't be clear to readers unfamiliar with the series. I think a brief introduction (maybe a paragraph) introducing the basic premise and recapping the previous novels' events would be very helpful.
There is no context for "Hazel successfully learns to manipulate the Mist." Mist is mentioned again under Hazel's character entry, but it's still very vague. Is there something Mist can link to, or an easy way to explain it? If the only mention of it in the plot is that she learns to use it, maybe it could be omitted entirely?
"Later, a paperback edition " this sentence ends with the release date, so the word later isn't needed.
Per
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, I believe "Development and promotion" should be renamed "Publication history", "Major characters" should be "Characters". The first paragraphs under "Release" should be located under "Publication History". "Critical reception" subhead should be a level up and just "Reception".
I did not nominate this article, but I was passing by and fixed your points about the image and the referencing problems. --
2ReinreB2 (
talk)
04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the corrections. The lack of a negative isn't too surprising - when a series gets this far along, bad reviews only pop up when an installment completely misses the mark. Nice work.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply