Talk:Gregor the Overlander

Stub?

I've just finished this book. The article is pretty much a complete synopsis of the plot. What else should be added to the article so that it's no longer a stub? --MikeVitale 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, do not see what makes it a "stub". I'd appreciate some feedback on what it needs from the one who tagged it as a stub. Saugart (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of some changes I just made

Underland is always capitalized in the books. The books always say "Boots's", not "Boots'". So I made this page consistent in those ways. Saugart (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Luxa -- Include?

Today, MikeVitale took out the pronounciation guide to Luxa's name, summarizing his edit as: "We don't need a pronunciation "key" for Luxa."

However, in the first book, Suzanne Collins thought her readers did indeed need such a guide, and the pronunciation is not obvious. When Gregor meets Luxa, she writes:

"Louk-za?", said Gregor, trying to get the odd inflection right.

I think we should put back the pronunciation guide, and I think it should be the pronounciation that Suzanne Collins tells us to use. Any other thoughts on the matter?

I'm leaving a note on MikeVitale's talk page, suggesting that he might want to explain his reasoning here, in light of what I say above. Saugart (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm more than willing to discuss this point, Steve.

The first pronunciation key that I see in recent history for the page has it as "[loocsuh]" at [1].

This was changed 11 days later to "(looexa)" at [2].

Neither of these "pronunciation guides" are in IPA, which I have seen used elsewhere throughout Wikipedia, and neither of them are the "Louk-za" that you have quoted directly from the author.

Personally, if there's a pronunciation guide, I would think it should be in IPA (even though I can't make head or tail of IPA myself, but that's a topic for another day...) --MikeVitale 03:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in violent agreement. Yes, the "guide" given in the article was incorrect. I'll try to put together IPA for the proper pronunciation. Saugart (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

movie production

some internet sites are saying this book is being produced as a movie could someone confirm this i also belive this information should be added to the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.183.19 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

xdx

cdc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.148.188 (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Characters" section

Probably best to remove said section and link instead to List of The Underland Chronicles characters. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of, except for a peer review of the changes. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and overhauled the whole article. See here to see what I did. I plan to submit the articl for review as a good article. Please say something on my talk page if that sounds like a bad idea to you. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gregor the Overlander. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516083051/http://www.nutmegaward.org/2006/index.htm to http://www.nutmegaward.org/2006/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 15:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright I will be picking up the review of this one - both for the Wiki Cup and the GA cup as well.

Side note, I would love some input on a Featured List candidate (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) and a Featured Article candidate (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship). I am not asking for Quid pro Quo, but all help is appreciated.  MPJ-US  03:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Toolbox

I like to get this checked out first, I have found issues using this that has led to quick fails so it's important this passes muster.

Peer Review tool

• Lead it too short, article this size should really have to sentences
• Heading should not start with "the" - just a suggestion

Copyright violations Tool

• No issues found, ony triggers on quotes. Y

Disambiguation links

• No issues found Y

External links

• No issues found Y

Well Written

• "in 2003, and is" does not need the comma
• "At first Gregor" should be "At first, Gregor"
• "immediately, and is" does not need the comma
• "her brother, and" and again no comma
• "a common themes" either "common themes" or "a common theme"

Sources/verifiable

• I get that the plot summary does not need to be sourced, but the "Propecy of Grey" should, especilly the interpretation of the propecy. Looking at the characters section I believe that should be sourced too?
• Sources use two different date formats "August 15, 2015" and "2008-07-23", pick one format and make it consistent please.
• Reference 2 does not list the book, not sure how it can be used to source anything in the article?
• Same for Reference 12
• The sentences that start with "The reviewer stated" does not have a source listed for it.
• Is "hogwartsprofessor.com" a reliable source?
• No source for the Texas Bluebonnet Award
• There should be no direct link in the text to "children's literature".

Broad in coverage

• Seems to be a bit heavy on the plot stuff, three of the four sections are really about the plot of the book, only one is not either a plot or interpretation of the plot.

Neutral

• It does list reviews that were more critical of the book, looks to be okay Y

Stable

• Not really seeing anything in the history, the odd bit of vandalism but that's about it so yes looks stable. Y

Illustrated / Images

• Appears to have the appropriate fair use tag Y

@2ReinreB2: - So since this is not the longest of articles my review was pretty quick. Only a few issues here, mainly sourcing challenges that need to be addressed. I am putting the article on hold for 7 days to allow for improvements to be made.  MPJ-US  04:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-US -- Okay, took care of some things. Everything under the Well written section -- fixed (man, I'm bad at commas :) ). Pretty much everything in Sources/Verifiable also done. You were right about Source 2 -- literally no clue what that was supposed to be there for. Ref 12 references Pub Weekly's definition of starred review, but I also found a copy of the review, so I added that. Same for "reviewer stated" and Bluebonnet award. There are just a couple of things I'm unclear about how to handle.

1. Not sure what your comment about the lead means, sorry. Could you clarify?

1. Sorry that should be "two sentences".

1. I sourced the prophecy bits, but they (and the character stuff) are all direct paraphrasing of the book's text. Should the book be cited after every section/bullet?

1. I think so.

Semi-side note: I agree that there is a lot about the plot here, and I'd like to create a section with publishing info. Only problem is, though I have personally seen several different editions, I can't find any sources for that info besides on ISFDB and bookseller sites -- which are apparently not Wiki-worthy sources. The fact that there's an audiobook, at least 3 separate paperback editions, and editions in several other languages seems important enough to note; I just can't find proof of their existence. Any ideas?

1. You have information in the lead, that's sourced etc. That should be included in one of the sections of the body (and the sources used there) so that the lead is a recap of the article, not the only place information is mentioned. I see that you have references for the audiobook there. And I would think that an amazon.com source would be acceptable to verify the existence of other edition, but based on your comments that's been rejected in the past?  MPJ-US  03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

1. On the hogwartsprofessor source: Normally I would not trust a site with a name like that, but the author and site seem to be fairly reputable, despite its name. The author is a literary analyst who focuses on J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, primarily, and the site is where he publishes many of his reviews/analyses. (He actually has a page here on Wikipedia.)

1. I am willing to take him as an "industry expert" then. MPJ-US  03:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• user:2ReinreB2 - I hope my notes above helped clarify stuff?  MPJ-US  03:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• @MPJ-US -- Yes, thank you. I will get to drafting a publications section. After rereading these guidelines, I think you're right about an Amazon source being acceptable, so I'll go looking (hopefully tomorrow). I'm still a little fuzzy on the lead bit, though. Are you saying it needs to be longer? Because it is already 2+ sentences. If it's too long, I will just cut the sentences after "It was featured..." and move them into the body of the text. Thanks again. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think it only had one paragraph when I started the review, two paragraphs are appropriate so that's okay now.  MPJ-US  02:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @MPJ-US -- Ok, Publications section is finished. I am satisfied with all the changes, though sometime in the future I might try to find more sources supporting the character information, so the book is not referenced 15 times. Is there anything else you think should be done? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looking through the updates I think they're appropriat and does help round out the article. That's really all I can see, so I am passing it for Good Article, congratulations @2ReinreB2:.  MPJ-US  18:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• @MPJ-US Thanks very much for you help! Good luck with the GA and Wiki Cups. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)