Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Harry Potter

Harry Potter

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on the article for some time now with other editors and was wondering if anything else would be required before I bring it up for an FAC. Any comments, good or bad would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance, The Helpful One (Review) 23:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments by David Fuchs
    • Lead needs to be expanded to meet criteria; where's information about Rowling's inspiration and writing, et al? -  Done --The Helpful One (Review) 19:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Structure and genre needs more references and needs a cleanup in tone- it reads like an essay -   Done - Cut down bits where I couldn't find references, and tried to not make it read like an essay. The Helpful One (Review) 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criticism sections needs some cleanup for POV language and structure- for example, "raised pungent criticisms" -   Done The Helpful One (Review) 12:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In terms of fair use images per WP:NFCC; removing the translation of the book cover and the game cover is probably advisable. -   Done The Helpful One (Review) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll give a prose review later, but for now I have some concerns about comprehensiveness. Is there any more information about the impact the book had? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More information has been added per this link. I'm going to see if I can find any more information on Harry Potter fandom! The Helpful One (Review) 16:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Added some more information. The Helpful One (Review) 18:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Now the references need some work. I count at least one {{cite web}} that's broken. Aside from that, I'm slightly confused at the references that consist of just a ISBN. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll look into fixing the references, as in regards to the ISBN references, Ruhrfisch said that Plot summaries shouldn't really have ISBNs as they are not useful — therefore it was suggested that I <ref> </ref> them. --The Helpful One (Review) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Done - Fixed the references.

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are my comments — looks much better compared to the last peer review, but still has some room for improvement

  • Since the article is about the novels and the films and everything, shouldn't the first sentence of the lead (now just about the books) make that clearer? Perhaps add to the current lead sentence so it is something like Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling, which has also spawned films, video games and Potter-themed merchandise. -   Done --The Helpful One (Review) 15:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead would it make sense to identify Muggles to provide context for the reader ... after which he seeks to subjugate the [non-magical?] Muggle world to his rule.  Done
  • I think the Plot summary section still goes into too much detail on the background to the books — I also wonder if it would make sense to talk about the Universe and some of the current plot summary as a Background section? -   Done - Cut down detail on the plot -- but I don't think the Universe bit is required? There's a section on the universe as well? --The Helpful One (Review) 21:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I like the expanded sections on each book, I have several concerns about them.
    • First, the seven sections are each quite short and the paragraphs within them are also very short, which breaks up the flow of the article. Would it work to just have one seven paragraph section with seven hatnotes (one on each novel) giving the breif plot summaries in order? I would have this for the plot summary section, not the current Oct 31/ Nov 1 / Hagrid the half-giant morass of background details. -   Done. The Helpful One (Review) 15:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second each section is a mix of publication information and very brief plot summary for that novel, but I think the publication info would be a much better fit in the Publishing history section (which now says nothing about the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th books). -   Done - moved the publishing info into publishing history. The Helpful One (Review) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third, wherever the information is presented I do not think presenting ISBNs in the text of an article is helpful — put them into a footnote / ref. -   Done --The Helpful One (Review) 14:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth, the plot summaries here still seem too brief and often omit too much, especially compared to the current Plot summary section — two examples: Hogwarts is not mentioned for the first book plot summary (yes I know it is mentioned elsewhere) and Horcruxes are mentioned in the seventh book plot summary but not explained (not are they mentioned in the sixth book plot summary).  Done Serendipodous 18:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment - with the {{main}} templates in place, surely the current plot sections will suffice. After all, this is an article about Harry Potter, not specifically about the books —— RyanLupin • (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add a few sentences on the Supplementary works to explain them and put them into context better.
  • Images should not be set to pixel widths per WP:MOS#Images (Hogwarts picture is 350 pox wide) and should not be left justified directly under a header (JK Rowlings photo is). -   Done --The Helpful One (Review) 18:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is about the whole series (books and movies and games etc) it seems odd to have the other media section last — is there no Criticism, praise, and controversy for the other media? Couldn't something be written about the relations between the movie plots and the book plots?   Done—— RyanLupin • (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is much improved but I still think it needs some work — hope this helps. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second look by Ruhrfisch As requested, I am back for another look. I will also have to say this is my third review and I am starting to lose my objective distance (the article as written is too familiar), but I will try to point out some area I still think need improvement.

  • Looking at WP:WEIGHT, it still seems to me that the first two paragraphs in the Books section go into much more detail (are given more weight) than the plot summaries of the remianing seven books. I also think each book should have a summary that is about the same length, but the current summaries vary considerably in length (one to three lines on my screen).  Done Serendipodous 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same section also suffers from overlinking (Voldemort is linked at least twice in three paragraphs) and has a direct quote (McGonagall on the Dursleys sp?) that needs a ref.  Done Serendipodous 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worry the language is a bit WP:PEACOCKy in places, for example "After facing many obstacles, forging lasting friendships, and losing countless loved ones, Harry Potter confronts the Dark Lord for the last time at the end of the series." countless loved ones? Countless to me means so many they can not be counted, essentially infinite, but while there are a lot of deaths in the series, they is not an infinite number of them.   Done—— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary works is a bullet list - can it be converted into prose with a sentence about each work (or one for the first two, since they were released together)?  Done Serendipodous 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked one reference, current number 16. There is a sentence for which this is the only ref cited While the fantasy world of Narnia is an alternative universe and the Lord of the Rings’ Middle-earth a mythic past, the Wizarding world of Harry Potter exists alongside that of the real world and contains magical elements similar to things in the non-magical world. but the BBC ref makes no mention at all of Narnia or Middle Earth or CS Lewis or JRR Tolkien -   Done I think that this ref is saying that the non-magical world is the Muggles, so I added the non-magical world of "Muggles". The Helpful One (Review) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked another ref, current 66 on Super fans. The footnote does not give the original date of publication of the source (May 27, 2005) and should. I also note that the ref itself talks about Harry Potter, but does not explicitly say anything similar to Among this large base of fans are a minority of "super-fans", similar to the Trekkies of the Star Trek fandom.[66] - it talks of Potter fandom as a whole and does not specifically single a subgroup of super fans in it. -   Done. Removed. The Helpful One (Review) 19:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think refs that are just an ISBN are odd
  • Is this about the books or is it about everything HP? I think your answer is everything, but then both the Achievements and Criticism, praise, and controversy sections focus almost exclusively on the books, and almost all of the material on the movies, games, etc. is at the end in an Other media section. What about the achievements and reception of these other media?
  • Also should there not be some mention of the overwhelming tidal wave of Harry Potter tie-in merchandise - lunch boxes and stuffed Hedwig the owls toys and who knows what else?

I hope this helps. I still do not think this is ready for FA, but your opinion may differ, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this article should focus on the books. All novels feature subsections about film adaptations etc. Perhaps the "Other Media" section could be shortened. Serendipodous 21:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I agree with this - as per the model article I was told about, Lord of the Rings is an FA, and it is mainly about the books themselves. Though I'm open on whatever the choice is. The Helpful One (Review) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Other media" section trimmed, and renamed "Adaptations". Serendipodous 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harry_Potter/archive3&oldid=1138561759"