# Talk:The House of Hades

does anyone know how to tag the section?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.18.131 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:The House of Hades/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

It may take two days for me to complete my initial review. I will note/pass items as I go along. You don't need to wait for me to finish to begin addressing them. Most of my comments are open for discussion, so feel free to question anything. Once complete, I will be claiming points for this review in the 2017 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
I think the prose should specify how Riordan announced the book - through his website.
BookExpo America, US News, and Nielsen BookScan should be linked.
The promotional tour was occurred "the month of release", but the month is not specified here. This won't be an issue if the publication info is relocated to this section from the "Release" section as suggested below.
"On the next day, the first chapter was released online." On isn't needed here. Was this chapter free? Was it on the official website or somewhere else?
" the first chapter of Annabeth " This isn't clear. Every other mention of Annabeth in the article is the name of a character. What does the first chapter of a character mean?
The pipe link for Coach Hedge is incorrect.
The plot summary is well written, but parts of it won't be clear to readers unfamiliar with the series. I think a brief introduction (maybe a paragraph) introducing the basic premise and recapping the previous novels' events would be very helpful.
There is no context for "Hazel successfully learns to manipulate the Mist." Mist is mentioned again under Hazel's character entry, but it's still very vague. Is there something Mist can link to, or an easy way to explain it? If the only mention of it in the plot is that she learns to use it, maybe it could be omitted entirely?
"Later, a paperback edition " this sentence ends with the release date, so the word later isn't needed.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels, I believe "Development and promotion" should be renamed "Publication history", "Major characters" should be "Characters". The first paragraphs under "Release" should be located under "Publication History". "Critical reception" subhead should be a level up and just "Reception".
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Sources [19] and [21] have titles in all caps. No need to shout. [17] doesn't name the source. [11] is the only one that has ".com" after the source.
Fixed by 2ReinreB2
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
no concern
C. It contains no original research: 
no concern
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
earwig's strongest match was due to an attributed quote. No concern.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
no concern
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
Everything in the critical reception is positive. Was there not a single bad/neutral thing said about it?
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
active improvement, but no major edits since nomination and no sign of edit warring or vandalism.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The rationale on File:House of Hades cover art.jpg has two "n.a." that need to be completed.
Fixed by 2ReinreB2
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Lack of a caption is fine, but WP:ALTTEXT is needed.
Fixed by 2ReinreB2
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass pending concerns listed above. Most are minor, but the plot needs a bit of work and the critical responses seem biased. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I did not nominate this article, but I was passing by and fixed your points about the image and the referencing problems. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@Argento Surfer: All the points you mentioned have been fixed. About the "Reception" section, I didn't found a reliable negative review. Pedrohoneto (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections. The lack of a negative isn't too surprising - when a series gets this far along, bad reviews only pop up when an installment completely misses the mark. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)