Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter/archive4
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because because I need to know how to make it a featured article.
Thanks, Guy546(Talk) 04:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: A lot of work has gone into this article, and it has potential. However, the lead is weak, and the early sections and reference section have problems. Many of the citation urls have gone dead. This is not a complete review, but it's a partial list of things that need fixing before the article would have any chance at FA.
- You might check the earlier peer reviews to see if the concerns therein have been addressed. For example, one reviewer noted that some of the citations lacked the author name even though it was readily available. I see that the author, Kristin Lemmerman, is missing from citation 5. I suspect if I checked other citations, I would find more of the same. These will all have to be made complete and correct for the article to advance to FA.
- The lead image in the infobox has a license page that includes a link to what is supposed to be the source. But the link goes to an advertisement for the Kindle and seems to have nothing to do with Harry Potter.
Lead
- The lead should be a summary of the whole article. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. I'd suggest expanding the lead to four paragraphs and including something about "Structure and genre", "Themes", and social and cultural impact.
- "The main story arc concerns Harry's quandary against the evil wizard Lord Voldemort, who killed Harry's parents in his quest to conquer the wizarding world and subjugate non-magical people (Muggles)." - I don't think you can have a "quandary against" something. Maybe "quandary involving"?
- "Since the June 30, 1997, release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide,[1] although the series has had its fair share of critisicm, including criticism for the books' dark tones (especially the later books, such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) making the series less suitable for children." - Run-on sentence. Re-cast as two or three separate sentences. Also "criticism" is misspelled once.
- "Thus far, the first six books have been made into a series of motion pictures by Warner Bros., which are the highest grossing film series of all time when not adjusted for inflation." - The "which" clause appears to modify Warner Bros. but doesn't, and the word "series" is repeated. Also, "thus far" is vague and needs to be replaced by a more specific date. Better might be "Through 2010, Warner Brothers has made six motion pictures based on the books; this film series has had the largest gross receipts of any in history." Or something like that.
Plot
- "The main narrative of the novels is set in the years 1991-7... ". - Does 7 mean 97?
- "(Harry's parents' O.W.L. year)" - Abbreviations should generally be spelled out on first use, thus: "—Harry's parents' Ordinary Wizarding Level (O.W.L.) year—. I used em dashes to avoid nested parentheses in this case.
Wizarding world
- When I check the sources cited to support particular claims, I sometimes can't find them in the sources. For example, the entire fourth paragraph, including the word "horcrux" is sourced to "A quick Cliff's Notes review", but I can find no mention of "horcrux" in the source. Rather than trying to source each sentence or paragraph of a plot summary, I might choose to leave it unsourced. Many FA articles on novels seem to do that. See To Kill a Mockingbird or The General in His Labyrinth, for example. It's understood that the source for a plot summary is the published story in question.
References
- Some of the citations are incomplete or malformed. Citations to Internet sources should have author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and accessdate if all of these are known or can be found.
Other
- The link-checker tool in the toolbox at the top of this review page show that at least a dozen of the urls in the citations are dead. Dead links won't survive FAC. They need to be repaired or replaced. The Internet Archive might be useful in tracking some of them down.
- The alt text tool shows that the images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- I will work on the links later, as I am kind of exhausted on the article . I have done everything you have suggested, except the dead links. Can you give me more specifics on the link-checker? I am having trouble finding it. Thanks.--Guy546(Talk) 02:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's the "External links" item in the toolbox in the upper right-hand corner of the page you are looking at now. Finetooth (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)