Talk:Divergent (novel)

Lead section

Due to the absence of a Lead section, I have created one with accompanying citations. However, I am not a fan of the book as I haven't read it, so if there are any editors passionate about this novel, please feel free to make any changes.--Soulparadox 16:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced review quotes

It seems like a lot of the sections outside the "Reception" sections are full of positive review quotes. While I don't think it's necessarily a problem to use quotes from reviews to, say, describe the style the book is written in, when they're quotes providing value judgments rather than description, it starts to make the article read like an ad for the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.123.71 (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Removed the most egregiously biased examples from the Style and Themes sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.123.71 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Dystopian?

The novel takes place in a technologically advanced future where intelligence, truth and justice reign supreme. Hardly is such a society "dystopian". Mdriver1981 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In author Veronica Roth's blog, it is stated that the Chicago in which Divergent novel takes place as Dystopian here and here and also all the notable sources stated it as Dystopian http://www.amazon.com/Divergent-Veronica-Roth/dp/0062024035, http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/divergent-author-veronica-roth-builds-empire.html, http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/divergent-veronica-roth/1026903257?ean=9780062077011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/uloop/divergent-the-rising-craz_b_3815023.html.--Jockzain (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mathematical pun?

So, is it known whether writing the Divergent series was an intentional pun by the author or was it just a coincidence? --Mudd1 (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

From her interviews it is clear that there is no connection between Divergent series and her trilogy, so it looks like coincidence. Anyways only first novel is titled Divergent but second is called Insurgent and third is named Allegiant. So also being the title of first book in the series, the trilogy is known as Divergent trilogy.--Jockzain (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people call it "divergent series", too, even though you are right, "trilogy" is more common. Anyway, sadly a missed opportunity here and since there is no deliberate connection I don't think it should go into the article. Thanks for the response anyway :) --Mudd1 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Plot summary too long?

Usually a plot summary is a paragraph or two. Divergent has way too much included and should be cut down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.255.193.224 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Nida Adeel26 (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed to you both, though this is 2½-5 years later and your first response. The word count of the Plot Synopsis is currently just under 1390 words. According to WP:PLOTBLOAT, summaries ideally are 400-700 words. I am putting a {{plot} } template in the page. I suspect the synopsis needs to be mercilessly gutted. B'H.69.113.145.134 (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Giving too much away in the first line of the plot?

"This story takes place in the city of Chicago in the near future." - We don't know that the city is Chicago until the third book of the series (*not* in Divergent). Perhaps it would be better for this to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainbownelle (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

it does mention a previous park area called Milennium, though.

T

85.166.162.202 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In the first chapter of the first book it talks about the Hub, the building formally known as the Sears Tower. Seemed pretty clear to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.180.228.88 (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I got it in the first book. Chicago seemed pretty clear to me. HullIntegrity (talk)

Dates

Last hour, more or less "today", I revised the lead and infobox, relying heavily on ISFDB and LC Catalog data, with references to those sources "Retrieved 2014-03-25."

First, the official timestamp was yesterday 2014-03-24 23:55 ;–)

Second, this article uses multiple date formats, perhaps most often DMY for both publication and retrieved dates, and DMY is unusual for USA subject matter. I see that Allegiant (novel) (book three) uses MDY exclusively for both dates and Insurgent uses MDY almost exclusively. It's reasonable to use that thruout consistently thruout our coverage of Divergent fiction.

--P64 (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sent email to literary rep

FYI, I sent an email to her rep listed at http://veronicarothbooks.blogspot.com/p/contact-me.html asking for an image of Roth, and a list of interviews and reviews for this article. Sadads (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Review

Sadads has inquired about reviews (just above and at Veronica Roth). See Talk:Veronica Roth#Review sources for the long version of this note.

• ISFDB: Divergent (novel); Contents of F&SF November 2011
• Kirkus search: veronica roth now hits Kirkus Reviews of the three Divergent novels

--P64 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Four (July 2014)

Four: A Divergent Collection publication contents at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database

Note, Data from Amazon as of 2014-03-22.

--P64 (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent student edits

The recent student edits to the page, clearly are approaching WP:Synth problems and WP:OR. Thank you @ElHef:, @Wtwilson3: and @Katieh5584: for reverting . I have started a conversation with their lead Campus Ambassador at User_talk:Michaelh.dick#Student_working_on_Divergent_(novel). They are going to contact the user and explain why that is a problem. I am going to try and recover some of the work from the contributions, but generally agree with the revert summaries, Sadads (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have left an additional message at User_talk:SaniaH3#Please contact User:Michaelh.dick, Sadads (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation

I am fairly confident that, in the sentence which currently reads "Another transfer initiate, Peter and his friends try to antagonize her during their initiation," an additional comma is required after "Peter" because it is a nonrestrictive appositive. (Explanation of rule: Chicago Manual of Style) I attempted to make the change, but apparently it is a subject of disagreement, so I am setting out the rationale here. Liberalartist (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Similar Works?

"Its major plot device, the division of society into personality types, is one used in other science fiction works". I feel like that should have a little blue [which?] next to it. 75.161.163.103 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. The main precursor we cite, "Profession (short story)" (Asimov 1957), features occupation/profession --which cannot remotely be Factions (Divergent) in general, altho it may be close for Dauntless.

What those two works share --evidently in our short story article and the Divergent film adaptation-- is the hocus-pocus science fiction brain test at the age of maturity, perhaps primarily; and the finality of the allocation. But Asimov's professional allocation is involuntary assignment, and the corresponding education is instantaneous by hocus-pocus transfer to the brain (again, I infer from our article).

--P64 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was an uncaught addition. Intertextually, there might be some relationship, but I am not finding any documentation for that relationship. Sadads (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case you should also either remove the comparison with The Hunger Games and The Maze Runner or else cite documentation. Paraknight (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

A very obvious precursor is 'Divided Kingdom' by Rupert Thomsom, first published 2005. Set in the UK 'In an attempt to reform society, the government has divided the population into four groups, each representing a different personality type. The land, too, has been divided into quarters....' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.36.126 (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Children's choice awards

Almost every US state has a "(school)children's choice" or "young reader" annual book award program, with rules and age groups that vary greatly. We have pages for a few of them. For example, Divergent won the 2014 Pacific Northwest (US/Canada) Young Reader's Choice Award and California Young Reader Medal. The former is the oldest such program, established in 1940--although the Senior category in which Divergent was this year's winner is not so old.

Beside reader ages, one of the variables is the time period covered each year. Divergent presumably won some of the 2013 awards (as some of this year's winners were 2012 publications). The sequel Insurgent (2012) did not win any of these 2014 state awards, however--if i clerk correctly. For 2014 awards only, I am able to report almost completely.

• Young Reader's Choice Award --Senior, oldest of 3 reader age groups
• California Young Reader Medal --Young Adult, oldest of 4
• Arkansas (December 2013), older of 2 teen = grades 10-12 [1]
• Arizona, oldest of 4 [2]
• Connecticut, middle of 3 = grades 7-8 "teen" [3]
• Indiana, oldest of 4 [4]
• Louisiana, oldest of 3 [5]
• Michigan, oldest of 5 - grades 9-12 [6]
• Missouri, oldest of 4 - grades 9-12 [7]
• Mississippi, oldest of 3 – grades 6-8 [8]
• North Carolina, younger of 2 = middle school [9]
• New Jersey, older of 2 fiction - grades 9-12 [10]
• New Mexico, oldest of 2 [11]
• Oklahoma Sequoyah Book Award, oldest of 3 = high school [12]
• Oregon, oldest of 3 = high school --its own beside the Young Reader's? [13]
• Rhode Island (late 2013?), oldest of 2 = "teen" [14]
• South Carolina, oldest of 4 [15]
• Tennessee, oldest of 4 [16]
• Washington teen --beside the Young Reader's [17]

Several of the linked pages are top pages for the program or for the category award. As I write, Oklahoma features the 2015 awards there; some other states feature 2015 with the 2014 winner below; as the school year progresses more 2014 winners will disappear from some of these targets to be found only in archives and lists of previous winners. Good luck.

--P64 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Beside numerous 2012 and 2011 publications there were some 2010 among this year's winners, and one 2008 (Paper Towns in Connecticut's high school category), and definitions range from a single designated publication years to a 5-year span or "recent" description. So to investigate one book across all states is daunting as well as premature for this book. --P64 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, there is a national Children's Choice Book Award by Children's Book Council. And the third Divergent book Allegiant was this year's winner in the oldest of 4 categories, "Teen".[18] Published only October 2013! Here in the back pages we are free to criticize and I'm happy to go out on a limb and criticize that turnover time.

(Unless I missed it, not one of the Pacific Northwest and US state CCBA recognized a 2013 publication with a 2014 award this spring/summer --among perhaps 100 US state CCBA in more than 40 states.) --P64 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the same report for a young-adult novel published in 2012, The Fault in Our Stars by John Green. It was a 2014 CCBA winner in 10 states. Along the way I checked and found Divergent a 2013 winner in five of them: FL, NH, SD, VA, VT (example). See Talk:The Fault in Our Stars#Children's choice awards. --P64 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for gathering all that information! @P64: Could you please add some more of that information to the article. I currently don't have the time to be revising the rewards section, I have a number of other commitments that have become rather busy! Sadads (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gloss (talk · contribs) 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this one. After a first look, the article is in good shape. I'll have some comments up here within the next few days. Pinging the nominator @Sadads: to make sure you're ready to go with this (being that it's been nominated since June and it's now the end of October). Gloss 18:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Something to begin with: the external links summary shows that some of the links in the references have had their URL altered. Not a big issue but if we could get the updated links into this article, that'd be a good start! Gloss 18:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Will do the external links soon! Glad to see that someone has finally picked up the article! Note: I have not been updating the article to meet more recent press coverage and scholarhip , so its likely going to be missing some of these recent items/thoughts from scholars. Moreover, I am really busy from now until around American thanksgiving, so I might be a bit slow to respond to some of the changes. Sadads (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done urls have been refined, Sadads (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! In response to your note, I don't believe too much has happened in terms of recent press coverage since the nomination, but we'll figure that out. Gloss 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Film info

One spot I do see that could use some more information is the film adaptation section. Currently it's filled with casting information, but information on how box office sales went and perhaps a line about DVD release would help to complete the section. Gloss 23:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Took sources from the film page and updated to make it more well rounded discussion. It would be great if you helped me double check those :) Sadads (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Gloss:: sorry I didn't respond sooner. On-Wiki activities other than WP:TWL have been hard to fit in, and I have been missing things on my watchlist (really need to clean up the 8000+ pages on there...).

The note about the film is a good point; at the time I had been working right before the film's release, I was running with what was available. I don't have much time this evening, or in the next couple days, but I think I might be able to use some time Friday? Or Maybe mid-next week. If you have any other concerns for other GA criteria, it would be great if you could identify those before then, so I can have a nice combination of low hanging fruit and research/writing/summary to work on.Sadads (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like we've both been pretty busy, as expected. I will do my absolute best to get some more comments up by mid-week. Gloss 22:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Specific concerns

• In the lead, the final sentence makes me believe that Summit Entertainment purchased the media rights as well as the film's production all occurred in 2013. From looking at the Divergent movie article, it looks like the rights were purchased in 2011, so please clarify that.

   Done also, expanded to make more clear the effects of the film. Sadads (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Roth wrote the novel while on winter break in her senior year[6] and the movie rights sold before she graduated from college" - probably could remove "from college" - it just sounds a little repetitive given the previous sentence and the beginning of this sentence.

   Done Sadads (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• In the plot section, the word "tester" .. is that a real word? Ha, I'm not sure but "test proctor" would make it a little clearer.

   Done Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Peter, Drew and Molly" - just missing a comma

   Done Generally, I don't approve of oxford commas, being a staunch non-conformist to picky grammar concerns, but there is a time and place for fighting :P No, just kidding, the image of a "Drew-and-Molly" is rather amusing. Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Once the rankings are announced, Peter (who came second) is jealous of the first-place finisher, Edward, and, under cover of night, Peter stabs Edward in the eye with a butter knife." a lot of awkward sentence turns - maybe reword it a little "Once the rankings are announced, Peter (who finished second) becomes jealous of the first-place finisher, Edward; under the cover of night, Peter stabs Edward in the eye with a butter knife." or something similar

   Done Ugh thats an awful sentence. Thanks for catching it, Sadads (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• In the Style section, one author is introducer with her first and last name while the next is only introduced with her last name. Is "Nolan" the author's commonly known name? Or should her full name be written out as well?

   Done, Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "The book debuted at #6 on the New York Times Children's Chapter Books Best Seller list on May 22, 2011,[24] and remained on the list for 11 weeks.[25] It also spent 39 weeks on the Children's Paperback list in 2012,[26] reaching number one." just for consistency purposes, it should either be #6 and #1 or number six and number one
•  Done Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• "It is still on the list at the end of January 2013." - this should probably be updated as it's now November 2014, to say if it is still on the list, or to say when it fell of the list

   FixedSadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• "As of March 2013, "book sales are now over 2.6 million copies for both novels combined, and both titles are HarperCollins most successful e-books ever in regards to sales."" - just throw in a mention of where that quote came from.. who said it?

   Fixed Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The awards and nominations section is only one line (two sentences) long - that probably doesn't need to be in its own section, so the "awards and nominations" heading can probably be removed.
• First line of the film adaptation section, again if you could add in the time frame of when Summit purchased the rights to the movie.

   DoneSadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Was anyone else considered for the role of Tris? We get information on other candidates for Four, so it would be interesting to make a small note of anyone else considered for Tris, if that information is available.

   Done opting out of adding more, going to thin. If someone wants to research this more, they can explore on the article proper.Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The second paragraph in that section contains information on the film's release and information on casting. I think the paragraph just needs to be flipped. It would make a little more sense to read about how the casting was rounded out before finding out when the film was released. Gloss 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

   Done Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• The majority of the references do not have the work or publisher wikilinked, as well as the three works in "further reading"
  • I've fixed some of these references. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now! Gloss 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant @Gloss:! Thanks for all the great feedback, it flowed past my radar again this week...been a rough personal week with lots of stress. I got on the other night to work on responding to the review, but ended up helping a new user on Wikifying Behind a Mask after the additions/expansion came across my watch-list. By the time I was done, I didn't have the mental capacity for doing the research/writing related to the film. I don't have any grading in the next week and a half, so I should have some time soon! Also thanks @StewdioMACK:! Sadads (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss:: Did an initial pass based on your comments. Significantly expanded/refined the adaptation section to be more accurate to the film's release and experience. Going to do another pass at sources for awards. I am imagining that there are a few more out there post-film. Sadads (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds likely. Good to hear! Thanks for making all of those improvements, the article is looking good. Gloss 02:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Not finding anything but the Connecticut's "Nutmeg award" for 2014... not sure if that is worth mentioning.... Fiancee wants me to go do things with her, so going to take off. Are you planning on doing a second pass for things? Or are you feeling good with this version? Sadads (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Likely a second pass. You added two red links to the page in the recent edits, so I was wondering about those (Carrie Hughes, USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books list). Also, one of the books you added is actual a link to the film version (The Dream Catcher). Gloss 03:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Second pass

Fixed the links: red links are okay, as long as they are pointing to something that is actually new. I will probably create the Dream Catcher one in the next few days. Sadads (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, I didn't mean to imply red links are not okay. But "USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books doesn't seem like the name of an article likely to be created soon. I will double check the article soon before passing :) Gloss 04:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, some publishers and works are still not wikilinked. New York Times seems to be the biggest one, but every reference should have their publisher or work wikilinked if an article exists. Gloss 04:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Done fixing: a bit worried about WP:Overlink with the publishers, Sadads (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's still some not linked: 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.

Refs 37 and 38 both use The Reel Chicago, but one says "The Reel Chicago" and one says "reelchicago.com" - that one should probably be changed to "The Reel Chicago".

And finally, please add access dates to the references missing them and keep them all in one consistent format (either MONTH DAY, YEAR would probably work best since MM-DD-YYYY is only used three times). The following refs need attention: 6, 24, 25, 26, 37, 46, 47. Gloss 05:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Feel free to fix those: I don't have any objections. Reference consistency has never been a strong suite for me, Sadads (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is your nomination. The comments a reviewer makes are usually for the nominator to take care of. Gloss 05:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Sorry, didn't mean to be offensive; but when I notice more formatting/style concerns when I give reviews, I usually go ahead and do them, especially if it looks like something the author doesn't do well. The changes are done, as best as I can tell (that or I am just not seeing what you want me to fix).

As a passing thought: none of these reference formatting concerns are actual GA criteria, btw (note Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#cite_note-2), thus shouldn't be something required of page for passing.

The rest of the review has been rather productive! Thank you soo much, and sorry its taken so long to get done. I wish I had more time to do reviews of GAs. Its been a while, and every time I start one, I seem to loose track of time. Sadads (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference formatting concerns are absolutely part of the GA criteria. Your link is to a footnote about the prose's MoS, and has nothing to do with references. But, will check back here soon. Gloss 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please verify the validity of a recently accepted change

Hello, all. I've accepted this edit, as it doesn't appear to violate the criteria outlined at WP:Reviewing, although I can't confirm the validity of the changes. I'd appreciate if someone knowledgable about this article could look it over. Please feel free to {{ping}} me if necessary. Thank you! —zziccardi (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Divergent (novel). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140327234815/http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/youth-reads/entry/40/17422 to http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/youth-reads/entry/40/17422
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130518002958/http://pagetopremiere.com/2013/04/images-video-from-divergent-movie-set-in-chicago-houses-in-abnegation-what-do-you-think-this-is/ to http://pagetopremiere.com/2013/04/images-video-from-divergent-movie-set-in-chicago-houses-in-abnegation-what-do-you-think-this-is/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)