Talk:Catching Fire/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 20:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well-written:

The article is very well written - I did not even detect any grammatical errors that I needed to fix. It is well-organized, and complies with the MOS guidelines for layout and content in general. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(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 two handfuls of reliable, third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. Nothing appears to be original research. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(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 covers all areas one would expect an article of good quality on a book to cover, and does not contain anything in the way of trivia. If the reviews quoted in the "Critical Reception" section speak the truth about the book, I might say that the article is just as well-paced. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(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's content is completely neutral towards the topic and all related things covered. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

While the article sees a great deal of vandalism, a check of the revisions over the last three months indicates that no edit warring about the proper content itself has taken place. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The sole image used in the article is used appropriately under fair use laws, with valid rationale and license provided. It is an essential image to use in illustrating the article, as it depicts the front cover of the book that the article covers. Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

(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 and evaluating the content of this article, I am satisfied that it is ready to be included amongst the Literature GAs. Congratulations! Oh, is this the Top Secret room? I had no idea... (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)