This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get it to at least FA-class.
Thanks, Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Melicans
It's not too bad an article, but there is a little way to go yet. A few comments I have:
- References 1, 7, 8, 10, 21, 28 are all dead links and need to be replaced. I always recommend manually archiving all of the links so this issue is avoided in the future (handy if any links go down during an FAC, and so that you don't have to scramble if the article ever goes to FAR. WebCite is excellent, and can be implemented with the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= functions in any of the citation templates.
- Overlinking; in the first paragraph alone Poseidon is linked twice in two sentences. Linking generally needs to occur only once in the body, and once in the lead and prose should the terms show up in there. Common terms, like second grade, also do not generally need to be linked. Another example; the section on The Sea of Monsters; you use ((main)) and then link the work again immediately beneath. Choose one or the other.
- Speaking of The Sea of Monsters, I'm not sure that it even needs its own section. A simple mention under Reception saying that it was followed by a sequel would probably suffice (though that alone might be a bit much since the article mentions that it was the first book in the series; a sequel is a bit expected). Do the readers really need to know how many copies it sold, or what awards it won? That would be better in its own article.
- The character list can probably go as well. It comes across as a bit crufty, and since this is about a book and not a cast list it probably isn't entirely necessary. Just link the first occurance of their names as it occurs in the prose.
- The entire "Foreign language editions" section needs to be referenced.
- File:The Lightning Thief audiobook.jpg needs a much tighter fair-use rationale.
- Any possibility of expanding a few sections? Pretty much every section apart from Plot could do with having a bit more content in it if it is available. For instance, the audiobook adaptation could do with some more information on its creation, and a bit more reception on it would be nice. The bit on the film could use details on why it was adapted, etc. Try using ((find)) on the Talk Page; it will link you to a multitude of books, news articles, and even scholarly journals that you can search. That will give you not only more information to incorporate into each section, but more references as well.
- The lead says that 1.2 million copies were sold, but also that 275,000 hardcover and paperback copies combined were sold. Which is right, and why is this information not under Reception?
- When talking about what it was ranked on the best-seller list, why not say how long that it was on there? The New York Times has that information.
- Do you have any more quotes from the author that could be incorporated into the article, specifically about the development process or his reaction to the reception?
- Going back to references... for the most part they look good; I see sources from The New York Times and USA Today, and most of them seem to check out as reliable. The only one that jumps out at me as being questionable is the final reference. What makes this random blog reliable? You may be quizzed about some others at FAC, but so long as you can justify what makes them reliable it should be fine.
- References really need to be integrated into the article more. It is fine having them at the end of a sentence instead of split every few words, but you can't use just one at the end of a very long paragraph, as is the case in Development and production (unfortunately the only reference in the first paragraph is a dead link, compounding the problem).
- Finally, refernce format. There are quite a few issues here. You use two different date formats ("yyyy-mm-dd" and "month day, year"), sometimes in the same reference (see ref 12). Pick one varient and stick with it throughout. Speaking of ref 12, how can it have been retrieved/accessed one day before it was published?
- As in the prose, linking in the references only needs to occur during the first instance of it appearing. New York Times should only be linked the first time; on the other two or three occurances it can remain unlinked.
- Reference 16; it has a publish and a retrieval date, but no link. Retrieval dates only need to be used when there is a URL present in the reference. Is the link missing, or is it a formatting error?
I hope that these comments help. There might be some prose issues too, but you will probably want to get somebody else to look at that since it is not my forte. Good luck. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
Going off of what Melicans said:
- I think instead of deleting the whole "Sequel" section, I think you should make it into a "Legacy" section. I know for a fact the novel spawned 4 sequels and a new series. Are there any other legacy aspects about it?
- If you want the article to get to FA, there are a few criteria for an FA that the article fails, including criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. What are some major themes of the novel (Google scholar is good for this)? What is some background on the novel before he wrote it? For a normal manual of style for a novel article, see here. For FA criteria, see here.
- Also, I think that only 32 references isn't enough to suffice for an FA. Look around for more references. I know the series has a large following and I think there are many references out there to get everything out of this article.
Good luck, and if you have any questions please ask. Guy546(Talk) 19:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an awesome article. You hit all of the major points of this story. Having seen the movie twice and reading the book, I can honestly say that you summarized a two hour movie and a weeks' work of reading down to its fine points. There was also great insight on parts of the plot-line that one might have otherwise missed, including the reveal of the sequel, which I personally am highly anticipating.--Bballa238 (talk) 23:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot section was very detailed, which I think is a good idea. However, there are some things that can be tweaked to make it more lucid. It starts off saying Percy has ADHD and Dyslexia to his teacher attacking him to his stepfather being abusive in the span of a few sentences. I would recommend starting with Percy having to deal with ADHD and Dyslexia and on top of that dealing with family problems. Then, I would mention that his teacher attacks him and why. It's also confusing as to who Sally is, so maybe in parenthesis you can mention who she is. As for the links, they lead to pages that are informative and useful. The references also seem reliable. Overall, the page looks good to me.--CCandC (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)CCandC[reply]