# Talk:Catching Fire

Has anyone found out more reviews? We only have one. THat part of the article really needs improvement. --Glimmer721 (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the Entertainment Weekly article really be quoted here? It doesn't seem like a very reliable source. Almost every commenter on that page agrees that the reviewer doesn't seem to have read the book. - 131.229.158.89 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. But it is reliable; it was in a magazine. It's just one opinion. --Glimmer721 talk 00:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have spell checked the entire article. There were no spelling errors.KF5LLG (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Catching Fire - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 04:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we should add the genre "Romance novel" to all HG books.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.4.33 (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 

I disagree, while there is a love story in the books that is hardly the focus. Andrea (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The movie needs it's own page already.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.163.32 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 

Is the title of the book a reference to the Gerard Manley Hopkins poem, 'As kingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flame'? 
evin290 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, I thought it was okay to freely add categories without citation, please correct me if I'm wrong. The category was "Sacrifice in human fiction" because the novel depicts children being sacrificed in an annual game show. If I must cite my addition, this is my source, I suppose. 
Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CATV specifies that categories must have both support in the article body as well as a reliable secondary source to back them up. Otherwise, how would future editors determine that they are supposed to be there? And the link you give is not a reliable secondary source, it's a wiki. Human sacrifice is, as the article states, typically offered to a deity. There is no mention of religion in the Hunger Games franchise, therefore I would say that we are not dealing with human sacrifice, strictly defined. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ma nam is geoffrey: please let's not have this discussion in five different places? Elizium23 (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, if human sacrifice is specifically offered to a deity for religious purposes, should the "Human sacrifice in fiction" category be removed from The Lottery too? There is no mention of religion in that story, either. Ma nam is geoffrey (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Probably, but what does that have to do with the Hunger Games? Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find anything online relating this novel to Scipione Borghese, an Italian aristocrat from the early 20th century, aside from this Wikipedia article, which says: ″It is cited as a retelling of Scipione Borghese, 10th Prince of Sulmona's second book from the early 20th century.″ I also found no mention of this name in Catching Fire itself. Either a citation should be added or this sentence should be removed. Louiseb133 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Louiseb133, I can confirm that this is a hoax; I reverted the IPv6 once when they added it to the film article, but I didn't catch the other revisions. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Elizium23 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)