Talk:Mockingjay

Mockingjay has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 15, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 1, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Novels: Sci-fi GA‑class Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

Children's literature GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Typo in review

A reviewer's typo "obstensibly" is marked "[sic]". Kinder just to correct the typo? Meaning doesn't change and it slows down the reader.

Dstlascaux (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Corrected. 24.15.117.78 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

This is not a synopsis, but an exhaustive summary complete with spoilers. Let's try to clean it up a little? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.191.170 (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this more acceptable?--Bt109 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:Spoiler. Wikipedia guidelines indicate that there is to be no warning for spoilers. –[[::User:Schmloof|Schmloof]] ([[::User talk:Schmloof|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Schmloof|contribs]]) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I included no such warning. I was motivated by guidelines at WP:Plot_summaries to trim out a lot of unnecessary detail. Bt109 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant that as a reply to the original message by the IP. I think you've done a fine job cleaning it up. Thanks a lot! –[[::User:Schmloof|Schmloof]] ([[::User talk:Schmloof|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Schmloof|contribs]]) 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The synopsis seems very unabalanced. It focusses disproportionately on the last part of the book and seems to have muddled or overlooked key parts of the plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.29.2 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to sound snarky, but wouldn't it be nice if the synopsis was done by someone who has actually read the book (this is a pet peeve of mine: people who write synopses of books or films that clearly show a lack of familiarity with the book or film)? That might also solve the "focusses disproportionately on the last part of the book" problem, since there is a bunch more material, such as Peeta's warning (which probably fed into Coin's willingness to agree to and honor an amnesty as as condition of Katniss' cooperation) which might reasonably be expected to appear. Thus, far from being kept away from the action, Katniss' inability to act forces the propaganda film makers to film her in the field; Peeta is rescued when she figures out that President Snow will torture him more and more as each propaganda film is made and literally finds herself unable to continue making them; the decision to hold another Hunger Games for Capitol children is (IIRC) made after she has recovered, at least in the sense of being allowed to do things again, from her burns (and, hopefully, dies with President Coin, although I don't believe it was made clear whether it was held or not); Gale drops out when he realizes that Katniss, even accepting that he had nothing to do with it beyond planning that sort of attack much earlier, will always associate him with her sister's death, thus leaving Peeta the default winner of their rivalry. 65.102.152.199 (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

I found this review-I'll cite it later, after I finish the book, if no one else does first. http://shelf-life.ew.com/2010/08/24/mockingjay-review-spoiler-alert/ --Glimmer721 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Since the book is now out and we have a summary and more info, this is really no longer a stub. I'm going to remove the notice at the bottom of the page and change it to start-class. --Glimmer721 (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we still need some more info.

Arman Cagle^{(Contact me EMail Me Contribs)} Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 11:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article

I discovered this article. Could be used as references. http://shelf-life.ew.com/2010/08/31/mockingjay-ew-book-club/ --Glimmer721 (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themes section

I've added in a themes section which we should expand. Hopefully this can become a featured article! Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also added in an inspiration and orgins section. A bit repetive by the third book, but the bread and circues was new info. I'm trying to find the article where scholastic announces the title and cover. Anyone got that. Right now I have this this and this to use. Derild 49 21 ☼ 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "bread and circuses" thing was new to me, too. I'll need to but that under the section of Panem...where would I find a reference for that? --Glimmer721 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Derild 49 21 ☼ 13:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll site it in this section. --Glimmer721 (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to ad in some inforation under Promotion from this source. Thanks! Derild 49 21 ☼ 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in dire need of pictures. Ideas? Derild 49 21 ☼ 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added one of the author. Derild, I sure do hope the refs in the lead that you deleted were contained elsewhere in the article… Airplaneman ✈ 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I made sure to add the information first. Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Reviews

Here's a list of reviews with links. Some we have, some we don't. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis?

What the hell happened to the synopsis section?--14.52.73.159 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Reception

I don't see any negative reception in the "Reception" section. It seems pretty unbalanced to say the least. The worst I see is in the introduction of the article which notes that some critics didn't enjoy the loose ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.66.88 (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 21:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article's content, prose, and layout all comply with MOS policies. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses plenty of reliable third-party sources, and does not contain any original research. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article is very thorough in its coverage of all expected aspects of the topic, but does not contain any trivia. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article holds no bias towards or against its subject. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

While vandals appear to flock to these Hunger Games pages, none of the edits going back to early January appear to constitute an edit war. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The single image used in the article is vital because it illustrates the main cover of the book which is covered. A free version does not exist, and the image has a valid license and rationale provided, so it qualifies for usage in the article under fair use laws. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

After reading through this article, I feel it satisfies the GA criteria for Literature articles. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

There's been some changes through time to the Critical Reception section that are quite subjective. The reception of this particular book has been almost the same as the other two books in the trilogy: mainly positive reviews. I've read all the review posted here for the three books and I fail to see how the reviews can be "mixed" when they're clearly generally positive. Where are the negative reviews or truly mixed reviews? I think it's important to note (and probably add to the article) that the fan reception to the final book has, indeed, been a bit mixed (particularly the final chapters and ending). While critical reception has been generally positive, fan reception is the one that has been less enthusiastic than the rest of the books of the trilogy and I found relevant to tell the difference because someone here is clearly thinking the reception from the fans and public is the same as the critical reception from professional critics.--Leatherface66 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting and I was sincerely hoping it would be sourced but the intro mentions fan reactions being mixed and again so does the reception section but there are no sources for any of this, it seems plausible but it could be entirely made up and Wikipedia is supposed to include sources for these things.

If there is an editor actively maintaining this article I hope they will remove the unsourced sections or mark them as citation needed if it seems like it might actually possible to find reliable sources of fan reactions. I'd remove them myself but I doubt the edit would last, since the books have such a wide fanbase and people are likely to keep re-adding unsourced information and claims about fan reaction the article would probably need to be protected (I recommend edits require approval rather than a complete block, I hate when the encyclopedia that anyone can edit locks articles). -- 109.77.113.86 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your appraisal. I don't know exactly when the assertions about fan reaction came into the article, but it was sometime after the Good Article review above in February. They are completely unsourced and unfounded, so I have removed them. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]