# Talk:Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods

The first 10-15 lines of the plot seems to be copied right out the back of the book. Can someone rewrite it and make it actually sound like a plot summary instead of a paragraph copied from the back of the book?Prottos007 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I take back the part about the 10-15 lines. The whole plot summary seems to be comprised of MANY different parts from summaries from backs of different books...Prottos007 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Step one: Get this article some references. At the very least, cite the original book, Scholastic's page on the book, and Suzanne Collins's page on the book.
Step two: Completely overhaul the "reception" section. At the time of writing, it consisted of one sentence of  original research.
Step three: Fix the "plot" section. Clean it up, shorten it slightly.
Step four: Add a "see also", especially in regards to List of The Underland Chronicles characters
2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues Resolved I went ahead and took care of these things and more, because I plan to nominate this article for Good article review. Check here for a general summary of my edits and the page history to see my exact changes. If you think GA review is a bad idea, please say so either here or on my talk page. I'll watch both. 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. I'm not familiar with the book, but have a passing familiarity with children's literature as a topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

"Scholastic has rated its "grade level equivalent" as 5.3 and its lexile score as 710L.[2][3]" I don't know what this means. Does it belong in the lead? While there's no blanket ban on citations in the lead (and they're necessary for contentious material/quotes) they are typically unnecessary, as information should be included (with citations) elsewhere in the article. Frankly, I'd recommend rewriting the lead from scratch; it doesn't really summarise the rest of the article. Here's a technique I use: Work out how long you want the lead to be. Let's say two paragraphs. Then open with the absolute key information: "Title is a Genre book by Author. It was released in Year by Publisher as the Number instalment in the Series series." In this case, you could then add an indication of the age range. Then, run through the sections and include the key information from each. A couple of lines on plot will out the first paragraph ("The story takes place a year after the events of Previous Book. It follows the the young Prince Something, heir to the the Kingdom of Something Else, who has been wrongfully imprisoned by Evil Dude. After...") The second paragraph could then cover the writing and publication process (including the audiobook) and reception.
I wonder whether a very brief introduction to the world/setting would be appropriate? I like how Miyagawa introduces Star Trek articles; take a look at the lead of Rejoined, for example. There's a certain art to both introducing the background of the fiction and telling us what happens in this particular instalment.
"The pacifist Underlander" Who does this refer to?
"to lead the motley crew so through the extremely dangerous" I don't follow
A lot of your links don't go where you want them to; it seems that links to article sections are case-sensitive.
Do we need all the intricate detail about the Prophecy of Blood?
"To date" will go out of date quickly. "as of [year]", "as at [year]" or {{as of}} would work better.
"The book was originally released as a hardcover and later as a paperback and as part of a boxed set" Could we have a bit more about this? What was in the box set? When was it released? And has the book ever been released as a standalone paperback? Was that what the year-later release was? Some clarification would be appreciated! (This section might work if you run through the English-language releases chronologically and then list the foreign releases last.)
"As of May 2016, the book was given 4.8/5 stars on Amazon, and 4.5/5 on B&N Online.[14][15]" This is not important; these are not reliable sources.
"Many reviews, including that of the School Library Journal, cite the book particularly as an excellent sequel to the first two of the series" I don't think "particularly excellent" is a very neutral construction, and I note that the two other sources you cite here seem unreliable.
"Sarah Stewart of Goodreads said in her review, "It was such a relief to be in the hands of an author who knows what they are doing and can create satisfying story that stands on its own two feet even when it is part of a series."[18]" Unreliable. GoodReads reviews are user-submitted; we want reviews from professional/noted critics and/or reviews published in reputable publications. School's Library Journal, The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, Library Media Connection and VOYA all look good to me; Amazon, GoodReads and blogs do not.
"Though these reviews praise the novel as a continuation, they also occasionally criticize aspects of the novel which are not as discussed in reviews of other installments. For example, Amazon reviewer B. Capossere states "The plotting in this one is not quite as strong as in the others—a bit more straightforward (though with a nice darkly cynical twist at the end) and containing a few scenes that seem a bit sketchy, not quite fully thought out or drawn out."[14]" Unreliable.
VOYA is a dablink, while your link on Library Media Connection is currently to a publisher, which is not ideal. I note that magazine titles should be italicised.
Your citations are a bit all over the place; some are great, some are unreliable and so need to be trimmed. While the formatting on many of them is good, some of the others are missing key details. With your permission, I'll be happy to start adding information to the citations to ensure that everything which needs to be present is; alternatively, we can wait until later on in the review process.
Maybe {{reflist|30em}} would be a little neater than {{reflist}}? Your call.
There seems to be little to no information about the background/writing process.
Please double-check my edits. This isn't a bad start for the article, but there are four key issues: the lead needs rewriting, the plot needs condensing/reframing, we need some background/writing information and a number of sources need to be removed entirely. I know that this probably isn't want you wanted to hear, but I hope you're not discouraged; I'm happy to work with you to improve this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, Josh Milburn, thanks so much for starting on the review. My internet connection has been supremely spotty lately, but I'll try to get to work addressing your comments and concerns ASAP. I'll post here as soon as I actually do something. I will say now that you're more than welcome to add info to the citations and pick out a good reflist template as soon as you get the chance; your judgement is as good as mine there. Thanks again. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Great, I've tweaked the references. Do let me know if there are any issues arising from this and we'll work something out. Some issues which have come up:
If your Barnes and Noble source is for the Kirkus review, you can cite it directly. (And you do elsewhere in the article!)
Story Snoops doesn't look particularly reliable. It should probably go.
Steven McEvoy's website probably isn't too bad; he seems to be a fairly well-published book critic. I wouldn't rely on it too much, though.
The Mad Reviewer is not a reliable source, I don't think. It looks like a fun blog, so I certainly do not wish to disrespect its author, but it doesn't meet our reliable source guidelines.
Same for Eclectic Eccentric.
Same for Literature Young Adult Fiction. Sorry!
And My Soul Called Life. Blogs are great, but they're not great for referencing on Wikipedia.
The Lost Entwife is borderline, but I think it'll have to go too.
The Brooklyn Public Library source doesn't seem to support the sentence it's used for; however, it does indicate that there are a couple of sources you may be able to track down, there.
I've tagged/am tagging some of the problematic sources in the article; I'm not really a fan of tags like this, but I thought they may be useful for you. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, why is this in the category "New York in fiction"? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


### Sept 12, 2016
@Josh Milburn -- Ok, here's what I've got for you right now:
I rewrote the lead as per your recommendations. There really isn't any information out there about this particular book's development; it seems the author had plans to finish the series in around 5 books at this point, but I can't find any documentation of that -- and as a middle child before Collins was well-known, there is very little info on its publication. I also hesitate to try summarizing the entire series' main idea in the lead, mostly because I've been barked at by other editors for doing so. There is good summary on the series page, but if you still think more is appropriate here, I'll go ahead and write it up, no problem.
I went through the plot section and clarified the bits that confused you. As for the links, I checked them and the only ones that are broken are to the "Locations" section on the series page. That was recently removed by another editor, for being supposed fancruft. I personally see it as no different from Places in Harry Potter and the like, but I didn't want to get into a fight about it. Do you want me to strip all those -->"Locations" links from this page?
And here's what I've got on your most recent comments:

You're right about the second B&N source (current #14) -- that guy is for the Kirkus, and I'll fix it
Great. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Story Snoops is a lesser-known version of a CommonSenseMedia-type thing; I consider it as reliable as CommonSenseMedia, especially as the language used in tis review seems original and not just stock copied form Publisher's Weekly etc. Before you ask, CommonSense only reviewed the first book in the series.
This is how they open their about page: "The StorySnoops are four moms from the San Francisco Bay Area. We live within a mile or so of each other and share the same town, schools, and circles of friends." I can't see any reason to think that they are recognised experts/critics for children's literature or anything related. I'm sure that their goals are perfectly decent, and I've no doubt that they publish very good reviews; it's just that it doesn't meet our reliable source guidelines. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I've seen StorySnoops mentioned favorably in places like the ALA's site, but your call. Cut or no cut? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that counts for much. I'm open to being convinced, but I'm still not seeing any reason to consider it a reliable source. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
McEvoy I used just to document the illustrator names -- they're pictured on the site -- because I can't find any info about them except in the physical books themselves. That source can be replaced with the actual book if need be. Do you want me to do that?
No, it looks fine to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Mad Reviewer and Eclectic/Eccentric do probably have to go. My goal there was to document a general idea that seems to be present, that this third book is just part of a series, but avoiding using the same refs over and over. I'll try to ref that bit to a more reliable supporting source.
Using the same refs over and over often isn't ideal, but it's better than using unreliable sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Literature Young Adult Fiction (LYAF) and My Soul Called Life (MSCL) are also pretty bad, as they are blogs (reffed here for similar purpose), but they are better than most. LYAF is written and hosted by a children's fiction author, so it's technically by an "expert in the field". MSCL is just a decently-curated blog. Your call on both of those; let me know.
Being a children's fiction author doesn't make you a expert in the field! LYAF seems to be run by some school-aged teenagers, one of whom self-published a novel. I don't think we could reasonably call them experts. MSCL, I agree, is well put-together, but that doesn't make it reliable. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Cut both then? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think so; sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The Lost Entwife's author has decent credentials as far as writing/books/reviews are concerned, and seems to do a lot of reviews. But again, that source is just to avoid using the same ones over and over, so it can go. Again, let me know.
I agree that the author's credentials aren't bad, but I'm not convinced that the bar is met for a reliable source. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Cut then? -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think so; sorry. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The Brooklyn pub lib source does support the sentence; there's a section on the page you have to expand reading "Opinion: From the Critics" with the appropriate reviews underneath. I'm going to remove your tag there. For the life of me, I can't track down any of those reviews listed there that I haven't already cited (VOYA and linworth's, for example). I think they were published offline in librarians' magazines I can't track down.
Ok, sorry about that. I'll see what I can access.... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The Underland exists under New York, and the book starts and ends in New York; I think that's why the page is in that cat.
Noted. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think the Amazon and Goodreads reviews are bad, please go ahead and cut them.
Will do. I have absolutely no opinion on the reviews themselves- they're just an obvious example of sources that are not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to check with reviewers listed here but I'm pretty sure the reviews cited currently are the only accessible ones that still exist for this book. Thanks for helping, again. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can track down... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, meant to say:
The "particularly excellent sequel" bit is actually "particularly as an excellent sequel" -- as in, what critics like best about it is its ability to keep a good thing going.#
I think this could be put in more neutral terms. "Excellent" is a bit strong to be outside of quotemarks, I feel. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to address this ASAP. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The prophecy is a big part of the novel, and an oft-repeated pattern in the series. I can trim some of the "meaning" bits (or maybe all but the "refrain" and its meaning, if it just has to go), but it's really very crucial to the book and series. There's a prophecy section on the page of almost every Underland book. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
My worry is that including the prophecy brings the plot section to over 1000 words; add in the character list and you have a lot of in-universe material. It also gives you (effectively) a 100-word quote. Lots of fantasy fiction have this kind of thing; it's hard, I think, to justify including it in an article like this. Do you have any decent third party sources which attest to the importance of the prophecy? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, yes: virtually all the reviews here mention it, and some go into some detail. I can also recall a source about Book 1 and one about the series as a whole that could apply too, though obviously more loosely. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


### Some reviews
Ok, here are some reviews which may be useful for you. I know the bottom one is already cited, but I was guessing that you didn't have full access to it. These are all very much reliable, and definitely worth including in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Saecker, Tasha (2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warm-bloods". School Library Journal. 51 (7): 100.
COLLINS, Suzanne. Gregor and the Curse of the Warm-bloods. 360p. (The Underland Chronicles Series). Scholastic. July 2005. Tr $16.95. ISBN 0-439-65623-0. LC number unavailable. 
Gr 4-7-This third book continues the saga of Gregor's adventures in the amazing subterranean world under New York City. This time the 11-year-old is trying to save victims of an Underland plague, including Ares, his giant bat bond-mate, and Gregors own mother. The quest for the cure takes the boy and his friends into new sections of the Underland where plants are carnivorous and a giant lizard serves as a guide. The Overlander is again joined on his quest by Boots, his toddler sister; Ripred, the rat; and Temp, the giant cockroach. As before, the quest is guided by a prophecy that only becomes clear in the later stages of the book. Collins maintains the momentum, charm, and vivid settings of the original title. The characterizations continue to be complex with each new book, revealing new sides to familiar individuals. Fans of this inventive series and new readers alike will be instantly caught up in the action and will look forward to future installments.-Tasha Saecker, Caestecker Public Library, Green Lake, WI
Osborne, Charli (2006). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods: The Underland Chronicles, Book 3". School Library Journal. 52 (5): 76.
Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods: The Underland Chronicles, Book 3 (unabr.). 5 cassettes or 7 CDs. 7:48 hrs. Prod. by Listening Library. Dist. by Listening Library/Books on Tape . 2005. cassette: ISBN 0-307-28088-8, $40; CD: ISBN 0-307-28378-X, $55.
Gr 5-8 -Life and death decisions, action, adventure, and suspense follow Gregor, an 11-year-old Overlander from New York City who is caught up in the ebb and flow of the Underland, a vast country that lies beneath New York. Although this is the third novel in Suzanne Collins's series (Scholastic, 2005), there's just enough exposition to help new listeners along. The story starts off a bit slowly but is soon racing along at a breakneck pace. All Underland Warmbloods are at risk of a great, blood-borne plague and must unite with the Gnawers and Crawlers (rats and cockroaches) to discover the cure. Gregor finds, to his great dismay, that he and Boots, his two-year-old sister, are at the center of another Underland prophecy, and that they must go on yet another quest to save the Underland, against his mom's express wishes. A few new characters are introduced, along with an intriguing bit of history about why the humans and rats hate each other. Narrator Paul Boehmer enhances the story by giving each character a distinct voice. His interpretation of Boots is especially engaging. This is a good purchase for both school and public libraries, especially where fantasy and the first two books in the series are popular.-Charli Osborne, Oxford Public Library, MI
Card, Timnah (2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods (review)". The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 59 (1): 11–12. doi:10.1353/bcc.2005.0208.
COLLINS, SUZANNE Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods. Scholastic, 2005 [368p] ISBN 0-439-65623-0 $16.95 Reviewed from galleys R Gr. 4-6
The third volume in the Gregor the Overlander series opens a few months after the closing of Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane (BCCB 10/04). In those intervening weeks, Gregor has nervously read and reread the prophecy scroll given him by Nerissa, the prophetess-queen of Regalia, an underground human colony nestled deep beneath New York City. This latest scroll, "The Prophecy of Blood," foretells the coming of a dreadful plague that will destroy all warm-blooded creatures in the Underland: the humans as well as the oversized rats, bats, and mice. Now the plague is upon them, and in order to find the cure, Gregor, his little sister, Boots, and delegates from all at-risk parties (including Gregor's old comrades Ripred, the rager rat, and Temp, the giant cockroach) must travel through a jungle of predatory plants to the Vineyard of Eyes, harvest a star-shaped plant, and bring it back to Regalia, where human scientists will derive a cure from it. This third book explores as many hard questions about violence and power and their uses as did the second; throughout the narrative, Gregor must make decisions based on uncertain priorities. His evolution from a scared, unwilling combatant in the first book to a morally responsible, talented warrior is here combined with a growing awareness of others' pain and an increasing tendency to mouth off; this balance between capability, generosity, and immaturity makes his character realistic and appealing. The sudden reappearance of the lost Luxa and her bat, Aurora, is perhaps not improbable given the limited acreage of the Underland-there is only so much space to be lost in-and admirers of the rightful Regalian queen will cheer Luxa's return to office. An inviting readaloud as well as a compelling readalone, this is an altogether successful episode in the ongoing Gregorian saga.
And, as a bonus, here's the cite for VOYA. I don't think I can get you the text, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Wallace, Nancy K. (2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods". Voice of Youth Advocates. 28 (4): 320.
@Josh Milburn -- Thanks so much! I trimmed out all those blogs (and then the unreferenced claims that left behind) and put in all of the sources you tracked down. I also fixed the "excellent" issue and worked on the "Publication" section per your advice. I also trimmed the "plot" and "characters" sections, and tried to reference all of the plot-type material with secondary sources. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


### Progress
Ok, there definitely seems to be progress being made here. I'll be happy to have another proper look through the article soon, but, as far as I can see, the following issues are still outstanding:

Lack of a background/development section. This might be a good place to put the information in the lead (which is not mentioned elsewhere) about target audiences, for example. It would also be a useful place to talk about how this is the third in the series and whatnot. Ideally, I'd also like some talk about the author's writing process and inspiration, the publishing deal, that kind of thing... If that's absolutely impossible we may be able to skip over it for now...
@Josh Milburn -- Ok, it would be possible to do all of the things you suggest except for the writing process bit. All the info I have encountered about the author's writing process and inspiration deals with either the first book or the series as a whole. I also have little about the target audience except that lexile score and the like. Really, at this point in the series, the author seems to have just been writing to finish the story, not with any individual goals in mind. Or at least, she was never reputably interviewed about it. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
A lot of in-universe information. Do we really need to have the whole prophecy spelt out? I'm open to talking about this/trying to work out some mutually satisfactory solution...
I suppose it would work to cut all except the "refrain" bit of the prophecy. All the books in the series rely very heavily on the prophecy, and this one I think is really the most driven. At least the refrain (which the characters repeat over and over) needs to remain. I'll cut the rest, though, as I said. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I finished my rewrite and culling of the original "prophecy" section. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You're still citing Story Snoops, which really ne
eds to go, I think.

Done. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It'd be great if you could move your references to the Boston Library over to references to the original source (though you can still cite them via the Boston Library, if necessary; there's a parameter for that on the cite templates). I can help you dig up the original references if necessary.
I do not have the original references, so it would be a great help if you found them, thanks. Some of the reviews I can't even find online, much less in a subscription-only source. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I should say that I moved as many as I could using the references you provided yesterday. I don't have refs for: Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, Horn Book Magazine (other review is abbreviated form of magazine review), and Linworth. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, how can a novel be a "New York Times bestselling series"?
Fixed. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Hope this is helpful; I do think that GA status is on the horizon, but it'll need a bit more of a push, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, concerning the sources:

There's nothing at all in the PW reference which is not already included on the website; it's barely a review at all, just a listing as part of a longer article. Nonetheless, the citation is:
"Children's notes". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 252, no. 28. July 18, 2005. pp. 208–9.
I have two Booklist reviews.
Cruze, Karen (May 15, 2006). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods". Booklist. Vol. 102, no. 18. p. 66.
Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods. By Suzanne Collins. Read by Paul Boehmer. 2006. 8hr. Listening Library, CS, $40 (0-307-28088-8); CD, $55 (0-307-28378-X).
Gr. 4-6. Narrator Boehmer has his job cut out for him in this third Underland Chronicles title. Dozens of speaking characters-humans, rats, bats, and others-need distinctive voices. By keeping his narrative pace even, Boehmer helps listeners keep the complex story straight. From gruff rat Ripred to coy toddler Boots, the characters are thoughtfully portrayed. At the center of the story is Gregor, the reluctant boy who Underworld denizens laud as a hero. Gregor is destined to fulfill a prophecy to find a cure for a plague that is ripping through the population, including a member of Gregors family. As he slogs through the complex world underneath Manhattan, the adventures come fast and furious. Thanks to Boehmer's fine interpretation, this will keep series fans enthralled.-Karen Cruze
Sullivan, Ed (July 2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods". Booklist. Vol. 101, no. 21. p. 1924.</ref>
Collins, Suzanne. Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods. July 2005. 368p. Scholastic, $16.95 (0-439-65623-0).
Gr. 4-6. This third installment of the Underland Chronicles picks up right where Gregor and the Prophecy of Bane (2004) left off Eleven-year-old Gregor is busy at home in Manhattan deciphering the Prophecy of Blood that calls for him and his younger sister, Boots, to return to the Underworld to find the cure for a terrible plague that threatens all its warm-blooded inhabitants. Gregor's adventure is complicated by his mothers refusal to let him leave. She finally relents, but insists on accompanying her children on their mission. When a member of their family is stricken with the plague, Gregor finally begins to understand his role in the prophecy and summons the power he needs to end the horror. The addition of the mother adds a fresh dynamic to the fast-paced, suspenseful story. Fans of the series will enjoy this latest, skillfully told adventure. -Ed Sullivan 
Horn Book, the Brooklyn listing is accurate. The citation is:
Flynn, Kitty (2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warm-bloods: Book Three in the Underland Chronicles". The Horn Book Magazine. Vol. 81, no. 4. pp. 467–8.
For the other one, the Brooklyn library is accurate. The original citation is:
Glatt, Michelle (October 2005). "Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods". Library Media Connection. Vol. 24, no. 2. pp. 62–3.
These citations should mean that you don't need to cite the Brooklyn library, though you can still include courtesy links if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn - Ok, I have fixed all the referencing issues. I'm digging around to see what I can find about the book's development, but I'm not super optimistic. Thanks for your patience with all of this. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
And now I have written up a "development" section. As I said before, there's not really much on the development of the individual book, but I did my best. This means I have now addressed all your comments to me, so please take a look over the article and let me know what's left to be done. Thanks! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


### Another look-through
Could I recommend that we change the target audience stuff in the lead to simply refer to children by age? Alternatively, would something like "middle school aged" be appropriate?
The "fourth grade, fifth grade" stuff is just the practice of most children's booksellers (Scholastic in particular); it's most common to list school grades, rather than level or age. If you'd like me to change it, though, that's easy enough. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's my worry: this is an article about a kids' book, and the third sentence is, to my eyes, jargon-filled: "Scholastic has rated its "grade level equivalent" as 5.3 and its lexile score as 710L, making it reading-level appropriate for the average 5th grader." (The redlink is also inappropriate; we have an article on fifth grade.) I read a lot and even worked in a book shop for a few years, but, before reviewing this article, I had never come across a "grade level equivalent" or a "lexile score" (or, if I had, I'd forgotten about it). I don't know whether that's because they're industry terms, US-specific, or a bit of both; while I do think they belong in the article, I'm not sure they belong in the lead. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, fixed. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"The "Prophecy of Blood" is unusual in two ways: it is the first of Bartholomew of Sandwich's prophecies to feature a repeating "refrain"; and it is carved backwards in a tight corner of the prophecy room, so that a mirror is required to read it. This prophecy is repeated in Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods much more than the prophecies of other books in the series, in part because Boots makes up a song and dance about the refrain. Her dance provides the starting point for the questers' realization that the plague originated with the humans. Boots's "help" deciphering this prophecy leads characters to rely on her to do the same in the fourth and fifth books, and marks the beginning of a new way of thinking about Sandwich's prophecies." This is original research.
All of this is explicitly stated in the books by characters. Specifically, there is one character who introduces Gregor (the protagonist) to each prophecy in each of the books, and he says all of this verbatim. I don't have the novels on me at this very second, or I could provide quotes. The only bit that is more observation than a direct statement is the "repeated more than". This section is written in exactly the same way as the plot, which I'm fairly sure does not constitute OR. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, a couple of things things: First, if it's said verbatim, you are running into copyright issues by repeating it here; I assume you didn't actually mean verbatim, but, if you did, a rephrase in the article is necessary! Second, while uncontroversial details about the plot are OK to be included without a source, analysis, which surely includes comparisons to other works ("repeated in Gregor and the Curse of the Warmbloods much more than the prophecies of other books in the series") and claims about how characters' motivations changed ("Boots's "help" deciphering this prophecy leads characters to rely on her to do the same in the fourth and fifth books, and marks the beginning of a new way of thinking about Sandwich's prophecies."). Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
...is bad? @J Milburn: I rewrote the section with the books open in front of me, to try addressing some of what I think your points are; I'd appreciate your feedback. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"A few reviews cited the novel's dark plot as a reason" You only cite one; if you want to say "a few", you'll have to cite more than one!
Yeah, the word "few" was a holdover from when there were all those blog sources. I'll fix that right now. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The stuff from Collins doesn't really belong in the reception section; it'd make a great addition to the development section.
I disagree; I think what's in the reception section reinforces the points of the two reviewers, and it's mentioned (not with direct quotes, but it's there) in the Development section. But again, if you'd like it moved, I'll change it. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, but I'm happy to drop it for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Almost there. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I've responded to each of your posts in detail; please let me know what you'd like changed. And thanks, once again, for being so thorough and helpful. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


### Promoting
Ok, I'm happy that this article is about where it needs to be to promoted. It's been a long process, but I hope you'll agree that the article's looking a lot better. It's been great working with you, and I think we've both learnt something about putting together articles, which is great. See you around! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks so much for all your help! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the GA review, Goodreads is not a reliable source for reviews. It is also not reliable for information about editions. Both reviews and edition information are supplied by users without editorial oversight (WP:SPS). Edition information is even worse because it's cited by the article as a fact, not an opinion. Please source information about the editions to a reliable source (such as a library catalogue like WorldCat). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)