This page was nominated by someone who didn't really get the process, so I'm completing it on thier behalf. Serendipodous 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this nomination needs to wait until after the final book is released in July. The article may be comprehensive for what we know today, but we are already aware that more information is coming shortly. Wait until the series is completed, see if there is anything that needs to be added or changed to the article, and then resubmit.
I think the Characters section either needs text or needs to be removed. If you choose not to explore the characters in the article, then the list you reference could go in a See Also section.
You are missing references in the Chronology section and the last paragraph of themes and motifs. Also "Early in its history, Harry Potter received overwhelmingly positive reviews, which helped the series to quickly grow a large readership. Following the 2003 release of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix however, the books received strong criticisms from a number of distinguished authors and academics." does not appear to be sourced, and there are other places further in the article that are lacking a citation.
I read once that the New York Times created their children's bestseller list because Harry Potter was taking all the top spots on the regular list. I found a source for you [1]. I think this is definitely notable enough to be included in the article, as well as more on the discussion of whether this is a children's book or not.
The controversy summary definitely needs to be expanded.
citation 43 needs to be put in proper format
The pop culture section appears to be mostly trivia. I think it should be removed in the article. You could mention the Ned Flanders/Simpsons stuff in the controversies article.
Oppose. Karanacs makes a good point. It might be comprehensive now, but in about 2 months it will be anything but stable and instantly become less than comprehensive meaning that it will fail at least 2 featured article criteria and the large amount of edits it will generate could also cause degeneration of article quality. We should wait until the article is stable and comprehensive. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, the article is likely to get slaughtered with edits and become an epic battleground of ideologies. After said cleanup, it should be good to go. -- Phoenix2(talk, review) 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-us Article...us? Sorry, bad joke :P. Oppose as per Karanacs - The article will be much more stable a few months after the final book. --PhilltalkEdits 06:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This article clearly has the potential to be a featured article at some point (there are few topics with as much readily available information), however, the topic needs to be relatively static in order for any real work to happen, and clearly, that's not gonna be realistic until after the 21st of July. Come back in 4-6 months and we'll be all good. — mrmaroon25 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plot summary should be slightly expanded, I see in previous fac, that it has been disscused and editors said, that they feel it isn't neccecery as other articles allready cover it - yes, there is no need to cover every single Quidditch game, still the events that form the main plot line, continuated trough the series, should be mentioned, it is abnormal that Voldemort's return is covered using only four words ("Voldemort's rise to power"). The Themes and motifs section is an oppinion of its author, especially the unsorced part where Rowling's naming abilities are praised - I couldn't help thinking it looks more like an essay, then encyclopedia article when I read it. All together sub-sections of "story" seem somewhat awkward - at least I was expecting that "universe" will tell about things like owls and houses, while "Recurrent elements" seemed like title for section, which would cover blood purity, the structure of books (e.g. the story begins with summer at Dursleys'home) or major recurring conflicts such as disbelief that Voldemort is alive. The translation section says that the books are often translated by expirienced translators - it wouldn't hurt to tell that this is not always true and mention difficulties translators meet, and mention fake and pirate translations ---- Xil/talk 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.