# Talk:The Hammer of Thor

What pronouns should we use for Alex? "He/she" seems awkward and a bit disrespectful, but Alex did specify not to use "they." Antrogh (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Antrogh: - Yes, I was just thinking about this problem. The best I was able to come up with was to note that he or she always goes by what pronouns is identifying with at the time. I think in the plot summary we can certainly switch depending on what he or she is during a given event, but her or his character description is going to be tricky. If you've got any ideas, go for it. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I was considering avoiding pronouns entirely, especially if the character description is short. That's still pretty awkward, though. Do you know if there's anything in the style guide about this? Antrogh (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
@Antrogh: - Yeah, I tried avoiding pronouns and it started to sound a little insensitive, like the character was an object. I will go looking through the policy pages tonight and talk to WP:NV, WP:LGBT, etc. If you want, you could start an request for comment. It might lead to a consensus decision or even a new policy. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a trickier case than usual, and not one that WP:LGBT has any established consensus about. Personally, I'd say that if the character is referred to in the text as both he and she at different times, based on the gender expression in evidence at the time of the usage, while singular-they is specifically deprecated, then my own instinct would be that there's not really any viable way around he/she apart from writing the section to minimize pronouns. But policy doesn't dictate that; it's just my own instinct. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hammer of Thor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


### Criterion
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Reviewer Comments
I will begin doing a read through of this article soon. My general process is to do an initial read, followed by a detailed read where I leave comments section by section. This will normally take a couple of days to complete. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


#### Lead
Added pub date to first sentence.
 Done

I think the second paragraph is stilted and not sure that promoted in the topic sentence is the right verb.
Reordered. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Paragraph works now, however I'm not sure that how the book was promoted (now at end of paragraph 1) needs to be in the Lead. This feels like another artifact of the page being developed as information was released - once pertinent but not so much now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed. King Prithviraj II (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know that the description of the Stonewall belongs in the Lead (is appropriate in award section).
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


#### Plot
Good job overall at not making this WP:TOOLONG. I haven't read this particular Riordan series so going to comment on what doesn't make sense to me given that context which might admittedly expand this section slightly.If you want to address here to avoid too much addition that's great and I'm happy to help colloborate.
Should establish that Samimarah is nicknamed Sam in first mention.
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Sam's recruits for what?
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why do they go after  Andvari and his treasurer?
It is mentioned in this sentence: "Alderman insists Hearth repay a wergild he owes before he may take the stone. Magnus and Hearthstone track down a dwarf named Andvari and force him to give them his treasure, which they use to repay Hearth's debt." King Prithviraj II (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Who is the him in "helps them track him down"? Believe it's Thrym but could be Thor
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Why does it matter if Loki touches Skofnung?
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Given that Alex is genderfluid is she the right pronoun in "because she is a daughter of Loki"
After looking at the talk page she does seem like the right pronoun. I have added a note reflecting that Alex goes by both pronouns depending on what gender they're currently identifying with.
I do not think a citation is necessary in a plot section but can definitely say a link to the book's website is not necessary.
Removed link to book's website. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


### Characters
Before getting into the specifics here I want to note for response WP:NOVELPLOT (or rather the section below it) which suggests a character's section is unnecessary for "most articles" and instead should be incorporated into Plot.

Introducing each character in the plot will cause an increase in the plot size, and as it is, the book's plot is quite complex. King Prithviraj II (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with King Prithviraj II. However, I removed some of the characters' backgrounds. This fits better in the characters list. Pedro H. (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm still going to push on this. It feels like, again coming from the perspective of someone familiar with Riordan but not having read any of this series, there is more than adequate context/introduction in the plot section about Magnus, Sam, Alex, and Randolph. Of the remaining characters, the only information that seems fully relevant here would be about Jack/Sumarbrander. Anyone else if someone's interested they can explore the information that's present in other places for more information, especially the characters list. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I am not quite sure how to go about this, so leaving it for 2ReinreB2 and Pedrohoneto. King Prithviraj II (talk)
For context, I usually prefer to keep a very short characters section around as a subheading to "plot" - because it makes the plot shorter overall. I have had GA (and AfC) reviewers ask for more character detail because they believe key info should all be here; I have also had reviewers say the opposite. As a result, I usually recommend caving to the reviewer. However, in this specific case, I think the characters section adds something important because of its discussion of Alex Fierro. The page Alex Fierro is going to go up for merge soon and (as evidenced by the discussion here) there is still an issue with discussing his/her character, especially in connection to the Stonewall Award. I'm not sure that could be covered adequately in the requisite short and broad plot section. That's just what I see. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I prefer a separate section to give more easily some context about the characters. However, I also see no problem incorporating this section into the plot. It'll only get bigger, but okay. Pedro H. (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I just noticed that all other Manual of Style articles are not compulsory for a good article other than lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists. Then this shouldn't be affecting the article's passing as there is a difference of opinion between users and we can always gain a consensus for this section outside the review as the time limit is usually only 7 days. Will that be fine? King Prithviraj II (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I think what you're suggesting about merging came from me and I think there's enough coverage around Alex to justify notability and wouldn't be proposing merge there. King Prithviraj II is correct that technically this element of the WP:MOS is not mandatory for GAR. Again I will reiterate my doubts about how much this section is needed, in the second book of a series, when there is already an existing character page and the majority of the knowledge contained in this section is already in the plot section (as MOS would have). That said I'm not wanting to hold-up the review on this any longer and so my thoughts and comments for the section:
Use of mortal feels MOS:INUNIVERSE. Suggest change to human.
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
What is the pertinence about Sam being engaged?
Removed. King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand "but the next person to hold it experiences fatigue proportional to that of a traditional swordsman performing Jack's actions."
Reworded. King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
This is the only time Amir is mentioned. Would recommend probably deleting.
Removed. King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I made some tweaks to Alex to try to reduce him/her usage.
Thanks! King Prithviraj II (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


### Composition and marketing
This first paragraph is awkward. Suggest
Before the release of The Sword of Summer the first book in his series Magnus Chase and the Gods of Asgard, author Rick Riordan had plans to publish a trilogy, while acknowledging that Percy Jackson was planned as a trilogy.Corbett, Sue (September 25, 2015). "Rick Riordan: Storyteller of the Gods". Industry News. Publishers Weekly. Retrieved November 14, 2017.</ref> The sequel was teased in the back pages of The Sword of Summer, the first novel in the series.
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Mentioning what was on the cover in EW no longer feels relevant (guessing it was added when it happened)
Removed. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Would either link to the Book trailer or remove mention of it all together
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Suggest deleting "While in Iowa City he conducted a radio interview, where he discussed the origins of his mythology series and his latest novel.[14] "
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


### Release
Remove bit about predicted holiday sales.
Done. King Prithviraj II (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Likewise given the lapse of time is there information about how many total copies there have been to date (or at some reasonable post-release point)?
Couldn't find a source which states so. King Prithviraj II (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
I found one. Pedro H. (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done
I am pausing my review here pending replies and changes from involved editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


### Reception
I get why you wouldn't want to use diverse in the topic sentence but think socially varied is less informative (but appropriate in next sentence since it's the quote).
Since you've had a copy edit I'm going to assume that the long [] staying inside the Booklist quote rather than being worked into the sentence is correct. Either way Maggie Reagan should be credited for the review.
Is Hypable a WP:RS?
Other reliable sources seem to rely on it for information, some visible here. King Prithviraj II (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Is "Riordan's newly diverse characters" better or worse? Riordan himself didn't become more diverse just his writing.
That does seems to be better, replaced. King Prithviraj II (talk)
I made a couple other minor changes.
Thanks! King Prithviraj II (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


### Other GA Elements
No copyright, disambig, or link issues.