# Talk:The Son of Neptune

When i accessed the page on July 13th (12:18 UTC to be precise), I found that the Plot section said "Quit being lazy and read the book!". I have not personally read the book (though i am considering to do so), can anyone who has done so redo the plot? (The person who deleted the plot by the way is 173.227.72.99).
Charlesisbozo (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the page should be merged and set on redirect until we have further info on the book. There is just too little info to create a page now.-Mktsay123 (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. There's nothing here worth keeping. It will be worth recreating, though, when more information becomes available. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 09:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This absolutely needs to be merged. All we have now is the last page of a book and some blog entries. Redirecting this to The Heroes of Olympus until some reliable sources discuss the work isn't unreasonable. AniMate 00:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with policy, but how would deleting a page only to recreate it later at all be helpful? The Dark Peria (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We wouldn't be deleting it, we would redirect the article to The Heroes of Olympus. Trying reading up on reliable sources and verifiability. Right now we have a book that will probably be called The Son of Neptune. The author has mentioned it on his blog and there was one page in another novel that announced it. Has anyone else written about this? Do we have a definitive date? Has Riordan even finished it? I think the answer to all these questions is "no". With such vagaries at play here, this book isn't exactly notable yet. Redirecting it to the article on the series for now, removes the possibility of original research, which has been removed several times from this article, and removes what is a sub-standard, poorly referenced article. AniMate 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
A redirect to "The Heroes of Olympus" is reasonable, and we should just add most of the information here to the article. Perseus, Son of Zeus 12:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that a merger isn't such a good idea. I mean, yeah we have nothing to go on, but it exists. Mergers like this were proposed before The Last Olympian was out. It still has little text. I vouch for keeping this article by itself, and keeping the "Main Article" link at the Heroes of Olympus page.Also, I agree with The Dark Peria. Camphalfbloodseries 05:24 PM (EST)
Yes, we have an article on The Last Olympian, and it was nominated for deletion. The reason the article was kept is because I found three sources verifying a release date. Right now, we don't anything but a release season. That article was kept because the book was finished and going through the final editing process. Those against a merge, please find some reliable third party sources (sources that aren't Rick Riordan) and add them to the article. Otherwise, we just have a placeholder that says little more than the last page of The Last Olympian. AniMate 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I nominated this page for deletion already, and there are no sources except Riordan in which these can be confirmed. Only the given information should be kept in The Heroes of Olympus's article. Perseus, Son of Zeus 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 I definitely think it should be merged. At the moment there is far too little info for its own page. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I support a merge, little information is this page right now. Derild4921Review Me! 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I've merged it. Right now all we have is the name of the book, the author, and the season it should be released. All of that can now be found at The_Heroes_of_Olympus#The_Son_of_Neptune. When more information is available, this article can always be recreated. AniMate 00:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I see that someone has rewritten the page. An inexperienced writer it seems. I still disagree with the merger. A link was kept though, in the article. Nominations will return, O idiot who rewrote the page. Heck, let's just put the merger back.  Camphalfbloodseries 08:47 PM (EST)  
See, person who rewrote the article, Slon02 reverted the article already.  Camphalfbloodseries 08:52 PM (EST) 1 December 2010 / 01:52 AM (UTC) 2 December 2010
Percy is coming back! Amazon says that Jason and Piper and Leo went to the Roman camp where 'a mysterious 'SON OF NEPTUNE' showed up one day.' This is exciting! --71.190.8.8 (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay to mention that there is a spelling error on the back cover? Riordan spelled the word "Olympus" as "Oympus", without the second-letter "l". 75.6.224.124 (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A good WP:lead is an important criteria an article must meet before it can pass WP:GA. Looking at it, this one can do with some expansion still. A general rule of thumb is to summarise each section within the lead. AIRcorn (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How is it now? --Kangaroopowah  04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Much better. AIRcorn (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Son of Neptune/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Airhogs777 (talk · contribs) 05:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
In total, I feel that the article is well written.
Lead The lead appears to correctly bold/italicize the first line and the first sentence or two gives a good description of the subject of the article. The rest of the lead (which is of appropriate length) is clear and successfully gives a general idea of the complete subject without going into extreme detail, nor does it "tease" the reader. The infobox gives all of the information that the documentation for Template:Infobox book deems necessary (although it doesn't actually say that it's fiction...).
Layout Although I like most of the section headings, this article really needs a Further Reading or See Also section. Good job on the interlanguage links, though.
Word choice I don't see any words that introduce bias or are ambiguous. No words are repeated excessively. Some sentences do, however, organize their words in strange ways. I also notice several minor spelling and grammatical errors. One example: there is a confusion between "read" and "red" at the end of the Development and Promotion section. Since none of these errors change the intent of the sentences they're in so I don't think I should go into much more detail about that, but make note of it.
Fiction The article does a good job using secondary sources as well as staying in our universe. I like how the Plot section even goes "The Son of Neptune begins with..." The plot section is extremely detailed but stays to the point.
Lists I'm not really sure about this one. In regard to Major characters, the closest list type I can find on the policy is the Definition List, which would look weird. But, looking through other similar articles, House (TV series) (which was featured) uses a table... I suppose the current format is perfectly fine. The Camp Jupiter section appears to correctly use the "children" format.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): The article appears to use mostly if not all outside resources, excluding the Plot section (I don't really see how it couldn't). 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): It looks to me like it does a good job of staying on topic but still answers all of the questions one would expect from such a page.  b (focused): See a. 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: In my opinion, the article appears to represent all associated parties fairly and without bias.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: Well, I'm probably not the right person to ask about this, but looking through the edit history I don't see any real edit conflicts (besides vandalism, if course). So I'm just going to say I don't really have enough experience looking through edit histories to pick them out, and call this one unknown. 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
I don't really see how it could use more images, since I don't believe the book was illustrated. I'm unsure whether a caption was necessary under the infobox picture (I can't find the relevant policy), but it would've been nice. The cover image appears to have been correctly tagged and licensed.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: In total, I'd say this is a well-written article and deserves GA status. 


### Comments from Glimmer721
Comments Not sure about the "Camp Jupiter" section; it seems just to be some trivia from the book. Is there a universe page for the series this can be moved to? Also, most of the references need works/publishers. The "Promotion" info may be better merged with release, and the "Development" could probably include info from The Lost Hero article about why Riordan decided to continue from the first series, how it is different, etc. I haven't looked, but there may be some interviews about this books as well. The sentences: "It led to speculation that the book would explore the events surrounding Percy and his involvement with the Roman Camp for Roman demigods — Camp Jupiter. On May 26, 2011, Riordan released both the cover art and the first chapter of the book confirming such speculation." is referenced with this, which only confirms the date he revealed the cover and "sneak preview". It says nothing about fan speculation. I'm also going to disagree with the above reviewer; a "Furthur reading" or "See also" section is not necessary. Glimmer721 talk 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to answer all your concerns here.
The Camp Jupiter Section- I completely agree. By the time you next see this I'll probably have an in-universe article for it and only have links to that page from this article.
Interviews- I'm sure some exist, and I'll look for them (I'm sure at least one exists though)
Fan Speculation- I didn't write that particular section and that ref is only intended for the cover art and sneak preview but I'll try my best to find a ref.
If you have any other concerns, feel free the ask me. Best, --Kangaroopowah  02:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about creating a separate article for Camp Jupiter (Camp Half-Blood was merged with Percy Jackson & the Olympians, so you may want to do that). Don't work too hard in finding a ref for speculation; that is something that may not be reported in a reliable source, and might be best removed (unless you find one, of course!). Cheers, Glimmer721 talk 02:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ugg, I already made the in-universe article. If it gets merged with the Heroes of Olympus that's fine with me but it's there for now ;). --Kangaroopowah  02:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Update: I merged the speculation sentence with the followign one to make it more referencedish. ALso there is a link to an interview in the development section. Best, --Kangaroopowah  03:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I still think the speculation info info is best removed. Again, try expanding the development section with info and refs from The Lost Hero article, like why Riordan decided to continue with a second series and the new style of writing. Other comments:
The Lost Hero and The Mark of Athena need to be italicized in the lead.
"First person narration" is not the new style; Percy Jackson was first person, this is third-person with alternating points of view each chapter.
"Upon release, the book ranked #1 on The New York Times bestseller list, USA today bestseller list and The Wall Street Journal bestseller list." → "Upon release, the book ranked #1 on The New York Times bestseller list, USA Today bestseller list, and The Wall Street Journal bestseller list."
Think it's still on the NYT bestseller list; you can check out the website and report how many weeks it's been on as of this week.
See if you can find anymore reviews. The major ones like Publishers Weekly usually have to have a subscription (PW might be free, though), so I've heard libraries usually have access to those sites.
Most references still need publishers.
FYI: I'm not taking over this review; I'm just commenting. (I'm hoping User:Airhogs777 doesn't feel discouraged. Glimmer721 talk 17:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I finished the first, third and last pieces of feedback but I'm concerned about the POV in the book. I believe it is alternating first because there is no external narrator saying the story and it is all by the characters themselves. Is there a flaw in my logic? --Kangaroopowah  20:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
First person uses first-person pronouns such as "I". The book alternates third-person limited omnicient, giving insight into one character for one chapter and so on. Glimmer721 talk 23:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

the intro to the page states that the book uses first person narration, however my copy of the book is not in first person but in third person, ie - percy looked mad, "i have a bone to pick with u zhang" he said. i know that isnt the exact wording but my point is that this is clearly third person so i'm changing it since there's no source which specifically shows riordan calling this first person. as far as i'm aware that style was used in the first series (PJ and the Olympians) and the egypt series. Thanks  Tca achintya (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When i accessed the page on July 13th (12:18 UTC to be precise), I found that the Plot section said "Quit being lazy and read the book!". I have not personally read the book (though i am considering to do so), can anyone who has done so redo the plot? (The person who deleted the plot by the way is 173.227.72.99).
Charlesisbozo (talk) 13:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Title says it all. --37.61.67.217 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)