Harry Potter

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking toward expanding it to Featured Article status, and I would appreciate comments that help the page meet the featured article criteria. Thanks a lot, Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! Malinaccier (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

When I picked this article to read from the PR backlog, I expected it to be about the character. It may be this is named by convention, but is there any reason why this is not found under Harry Potter series or Harry Potter books (both of which are redirects to this) or some other name? - I think this is supposed to be about all of the available information on Harry Potter as a whole, including different aspects such as the books, the films etc - that's why it's under "Harry Potter" - up at the top of the page states that this is about the fantasy series - and gives links to the character and related topics. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I was surprised that the Plot section is not really a summary of the seven books in the series. I would mention more of the main characters - how can Peter Pettigrew be in the Plot sedction when Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger (and Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore and Sirius Black) are not? The plot goes into far too much detail on the setup and not enough on the individual books. See WP:WEIGHT - Not sure if the link that someone added at the bottom of the Plot would suffice - a link to Harry_Potter#Series to have information about the different books. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid needless repetition - Hagrid is called a half giant twice in the Plot section, or the seven book titles are listed twice (at least) - once in the Series section and again in the Harry Potter books section (which violates WP:HEAD by repeating the article title in a header) - Removed both repetitions. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Block quotes are supposed to be at least four lines of text long. Also use the blockquote template, not cquote. - changed to the Blockquote template. --The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that should be combined with others or perhaps expanded. Same thing for most very short sections. - Done - Fixed. The Helpful One ^(Review) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is ONE paragraph in the Publication history section on six books in a seven book series? - Added more information. Not sure if suffices? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]