Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [1].

Harry Potter

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thehelpfulone (talk)
previous FAC June 2007


Hi there, I would like to nominate this good article for FA. I have worked on the article for quite a while now, and through Peer Reviews, I think that the article is ready for FAC. The other major contributor is Serendipodous who is currently unable to co-nom because of another FAC. I will be ready to make any changes, if required - thank you for your time! :) The Helpful One (Review) 14:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All the issues have been addressed —— RyanLupin • (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—The prose is generally good, but I shouldn't be able to find these issues easily in the lead. This means that another run-through by someone fresh is required throughout: not a big job, though.

  • "he seeks to subjugate the Muggle (non-magical population) world to his rule"— "population" doesn't work as an eqivalent in this sentence.
  • "has sold more than 400 million copies and been translated"—another "has" required.
  • "English language versions"—hyphen required, esp. in BrEng.
  • Wrong date format used. I'll zip them now with the script.
  • Spaced en dash required for the ranged publication dates.
  • Monetary worth: needs "as of [year]".

Tony (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link here when buzzing my talk page? "English-language versions" (not British language- rather than picture-book versions). Can you persuade someone else to go through the rest of the article, please? Tony (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sorry. I asked one user, Szyslak to have a look at it, but I'll still look around. The Helpful One Review 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I asked Juliancolton to copy edit the article, and he has gone through it and copy edited the mistakes and the prose. The Helpful One Review 19:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Accio Quote ref can be subbed with the original article. Mugglenet always provides links to articles so it shouldn't be too hard to find the original sources. Serendipodous 17:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The MOS link titles, ref 86. The Helpful One Review 19:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for mixing the cite and citation templates, when you go to edit the article, you can scroll to the bottom and see a list of templates used in the article. You're using both the cite family and the citation family, which give inconsistent results. You need to use either only citation or only cite templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Done. The Helpful One Review 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completed all of the source problems, replacing with reliable news websites. See the history for verification. The Helpful One Review 11:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comments

  • Current ref 28 (Harry Potter and the Mystery of J K's lost initial) is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 30 (WILD ABOUT HARRY) has a link title in all capitals. Per the MOS, we don't do all capitals even when the web page itself is in all capitals.
  • Still one muggle.net ref http://media.mugglenet.com/movie5/redcarpetvideo/ootpredcarpet.mov current ref 123
Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Ref 28 and 30. Muggle Net citation removed. The Helpful One Review 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please Remove the done comments from another editor's post; only the reviewer or editor who wrote the comment says when they are done. Please follow talk page conventions and do not append commentary to another editor's comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't the time for a full review, but a quick read through shows up a few issues that I suggest you consider addressing:
    • The prose is OK, but contains various unnecessary intensifiers (examples only: "This formula was completely broken"; "The novels are very much in the fantasy genre"). The sentences work OK without them. Take another look at the other sections too.
    • Certain common terms are linked, especially early on (examples only: "book series", "merchandise", "eponymous"). These don't really add to a reader's understanding of the topic at hand, and I would expect the majority to know what these words and phrases mean.
    • On my browser at least (Firefox 3, resolution of 1280x800), the image in the "Universe" section impacts upon the "Structure and genre" section below it, pushing the heading 1/4 across the page. Steve T • C 22:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy

  • Why is a set of stamps used in the infobox of an article on a series of books? (And why does the caption need a ref?)
  • "his best friends from" - does this need a link? (and I dunno, the "best" sounds... childish? Can they just be friends?)
  • "his quest to conquer the Wizarding world" - is this supposed to be capitalised? (I don't know. Serious question.)
  • "As of June 2008, the book series" - I doubt book series needs a link; going by the lead so far you've (hopefully) made it obvious what you're talking about.
  • Ref 3 formatting is odd; why repeating the publisher with and without italics?
  • The seventh and last book in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released on 21 July 2007" - does a statement like this belong in the lead?
  • "Publishers announced a record-breaking 12 million copies for the first print run in the United States alone." - clarify the first print run of the last book (again, if something this specific deserves to be in the lead)

That's just from the lead. Agree with Tony; prose needs some love. Giggy (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done: HP release date. Delinking of best friends, removing best. Delinked book series per previous comment, fixed ref 3 formatting. Capital of Wizarding world removed, shouldn't be capitalised. Removed record breaking information from lead, in main of article. Removed the ref for the caption, but kept the stamp as its the only picture showing the book covers, if this article becomes FAC, I will use the Free Image of J.K. Rowling in the article to put on the Main Page. The Helpful One Review 13:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why the infobox needs a nonfree image. Giggy (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is because there are no free ones to replace that image available, and the books need illustrating. The Helpful One Review 14:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need illustrating. We add it if it's going to significantly improve reader understanding (see NFCC). How does an image of stamps of the book covers do that? Giggy (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps show the book covers. The book covers are required as it improves reader's understanding by showing what the books look like. This would allow them to understand aspects of the article more easily, such as the Plot - as they would be able to see from the Book Covers what each book is about. The Helpful One Review 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? The book cover does nothing to assist in the plot understanding. If the plot section is that unclear, you have a different issue, but if not, then an image of two boys in a flying car really doesn't convey the entire plot of The Chamber of Secrets. They're unnecessary nonfree images. The same applies to the image in the Universe section, which (along with its caption) does nothing to increase reader understanding. "It's a castle" would do just as much as that image does. Giggy (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound harsh, but how does the cover of Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings help the reader? It's the same context I think! The Helpful One Review 14:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to respond with a lame WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS style argument too? If you have an issue with my article, raise it at its FAC. Otherwise, address the issues with your article, please. Giggy (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no available fair use to replace that image, and the image illustrates the book covers. What do you suggest that I do, or replace the image with? The Helpful One Review 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The favoured style for the introduction is surely to have as few footnotes as possible, since it should be providing material that's dealt with in more detail and referenced within the article. The second paragraph has a lot of footnotes and some detail there appears to be in conflict with the article (67 translations / 65 translations; 400 million copies /375 million copies). N p holmes (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A formatting triviality: newspapers and magazines in the footnotes are sometimes in italics, sometimes not. Consistency is needed.
  • You expect ref. 84 (the first in the Literary Criticism section) to lead to the various newspapers just cited. In fact it leads to a page of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. This isn't the publishers' advertising matter is it? Because: i) direct quotations would be more appropriate; ii) of course publishers aren't going to put adverse reviews (or the unfavourable parts of mixed reviews) in their books. Striking this now – I (and others) have made some changes to your changes (mostly formatting, but I also removed the ref to the publisher's advertising matter, which is now superfluous and seems undesirable to me). N p holmes (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your footnote for the A.N. Wilson quote is leading to the wrong article in the wrong newspaper. N p holmes (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Italics - changed to no italics. A.N. Wilson quote, with the correct article for the correct newspaper. Removed footnotes from lead, did the 67/65 translations. Also the 400 million copies sold. The Helpful One Review 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reference for ref 84 (now ref 83). The Helpful One Review 15:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward. I see the same applies to the article about the book. If none of the reviews are online, might you demonstrate its good reception with the prizes it won (the Nestlé Smarties Book Prize was a major children's book prize)? Otherwise perhaps cut out the direct quotations and say in the footnotes what the page of the book is that your citing? Are there books on the series that talk about the first book's reception? N p holmes (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have no idea what you just said. I found one book on Google Books which gives a little info on these newspaper citations. Will this suffice? The Helpful One Review 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes a brief summary of what that book says about the first book's critical reception and reference to it should do very well. N p holmes (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done: See this edit. The Helpful One Review 17:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, to aid the FAC director, or his delegate, in determining whether the issues have been properly resolved, it should be made clear who has struck these concerns out. Otherwise, this page history must be laboriously stepped through to make sure it wasn't anyone other than the editor who brought the concerns. Steve T • C 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't strike, the commentor did. :) The Helpful One Review 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it probably was, but it should still be made clear. I'll add some diffs in a minute. Steve T • C 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. The article is not ready for FAC. I believe it fails the comprehensiveness standard and needs an improved standard of prose.
  • Should Prisoner of Azkaban summary mention that Harry is learning skills well beyond his grade level?
  • Goblet of Fire overview seems very very short.
  • Order of the Phoenix overview should probably mention that Harry develops a mental link with Voldemort, often "seeing" what Voldemort is doing. It also does not mention the Order of the Phoenix at all - that seems important. Should the DA also be mentioned - Harry training others in the skills they need to defend themselves?
  • There is no info about Tales of Beedle the Bard being released widely (I believe it is scheduled for December 10?).
  • I agree that the article does need a good copyedit. Among the issues I see (these are examples only):
    • Clause confusion "Many of its institutions and locations are in towns and cities which are recognisable in the real world, such as London" - is the "such as London" referring to ""the real world", 'towns and cities" or "institutions and locations"?
    • Overly detailed info in a few places - "There is no educational equivalent to college..." is unnecessary in this article, cited or not.
    • Pronoun confusion "In many respects they are also bildungsromans" - ' is "they" the books, the "structure and genre" (that is the title of the section) or something else
Restored first sentence; I have no idea why it was removed. Serendipodous 20:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Helpful One Review 16:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably wise to explain that there are 2 Bloomsbury versions (adult and child) before casually mentioning "cover art for the Bloomsbury Adult and Child versions and the Scholastic version were released"
  • The "After Deathly Hallows" section repeats some information already elsewhre in the article. It also includes info that is not very relevant (Rowling is currently penning two books... does not need to be in this article). I think the whole section could be yanked.
  • The cultural impact section needs work. Part of it is written in a tone that makes it seem like the events are still ongoing (i.e., they will happen again with future books...but no more future books).
  • It is probably worth mentioning here that the New York Times created a separate bestseller's list for children's literature primarily because Harry Potter books remained at the top of the main bestseller list for so long.
  • This needs a citation "In November 2007, the magazine Advertising Age estimated the total value of the Harry Potter brand at roughly $15 billion (£7 billion). Only a fraction of this value was derived from the book sales. The rest was drawn from a wide range of ancillary works, from films to video games to merchandising."
  • Quotations need to be immediately followed by a citation, even if this means that there might be citations duplicated across subsequent sentences. There are issues with this in literary criticism.
  • This article does not really discuss the themes of the series. There are several overarching themes to the series - journey through adolescence, courage and loyalty, spiritualism, etc, etc. This is a major oversight.

Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the examples of prose issues that I gave above were examples only. The same problems are rife throughout the article, and it needs a copyedit by an external party. I also redid the structure of the article today, so that the TOC gives appropriate weight to the topics that are included. This should help you to see better where the article has weight isses (compare, for example, the section on style and genre and the section on Origins and publication history - style and genre should have as much if not more info than Origins). This type of weight issue could be due to a misplaced level of detail in some sections. The themes section, while an excellent addition, is not comprehensive enough. The section reflects what Rowling says, but not enough of what independent critics thought (no real discussion of religion, which is a shame considering the number of books written on that piece). You've done good work so far, but there is a lot to still be done. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now You're putting Harry Potter up for feature. Rock on. It has incredible company in literature topics that have reached FA status. Kudos to you for taking this on.
  • Two sentences in a row end "in history". You should change one. Both, I feel, need citations, even in the lead. When discussing records that have been set and broken, cite it.
  • I think you can add more to the lead, particularly how the themes have affected the popularity of the novels, answering the question of what about these books resounds for readers so well.
  • They can be considered part of the British children's... It's more definitive to say who considers them part of the boarding school genre. Remember that it's more impressive to include the opinions of scholars than it is to state as fact what they have said. Try "According to scholar..." and similar tie-ins.
  • I'd like to see more insight as to why Rowling chose death as a theme of the books. I mean, there is a LOT of death. Did it affect her as a child? As an adult? What is she working through?
  • What's this? nomalcy and the quest for making children normal Can I get an example from the books, preferably something scholars have used?
  • This “the conflict between the paradigms of transcendence of context and adaptation to context” needs at least one example.
  • Ironically, I suppose, the Structure and genre section should be restructured. You're highlighting three or four genres here (is structure necessary?) and should address each in turn. Yes, fantasy must seem self-explanatory, but give cited examples, please. Dedicate boarding school to a paragraph, and another for school rules? Is that its own theme or is that bildungsroman - because that's not clear.
  • The story of how Harry Potter came to Rowling is much more compelling than is expressed in this article. Expand this, join the first two paragraphs.
  • In Origins and publishing history, dates are not as important that numbers sold, and records broken. I'd change the dates to years only and expand on the other facts, or take this information out completely to concentrate on the impact of the books in the Achievement section.
  • What's this? Golyshev's tendency to snub the Harry Potter books in interviews and refer to them as inferior literature may be the reason he did not return to work on later books in the series. your view or someone else's? If it's someone else's, state whose. If yours...shouldn't be in there.
  • Best of luck on this. For real. --Moni3 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harry_Potter/archive3&oldid=1085529683"