Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive3

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows edit

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 need more information on how to make it a featured article.

Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 21:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is interesting, certainly broad in coverage, and generally well-written. Here are some suggestions for further improvement.

Lead

"There are many themes in the book, including living in a corrupted society, dealing with death, as well as many Christian allegories." - This is a bit weak. Most novels have many themes. Suggestion: "Major themes deal with life and death in a corrupted society, and critics have compared them to Christian allegories." Or something like that.

"Reception to the book was generally positive and several awards were given to the novel, including the 2008 Colorado Blue Spruce Book Award, and it was listed as a "Best Book for Young Adults" by the American Library Association. A film based on the book is split into two parts, with each of the parts being released eight months apart: the first part was released in November 2010, and the second part is to be released in July 2011." - A bit passive and wordy. Suggestion: Generally well-received, the book won the 2008 Colorado Blue Spruce Book Award, and the American Library Association named it a "Best Book for Young Adults". A two-part film based on the book began showing in November 2010, when the first part was released; the second part is scheduled for July 2011."

Plot introduction

Horcrux is capitalized in some places in the article and lower-cased in others. Choose one and stick with it throughout. My guess is that "horcrux" is better than "Horcrux" since it seems to be a generic term rather than a formal name or title.

Death

"while comparing Harry to Frodo Baggins in the latter." - It's not clear what "the latter" refers to, probably because it's tacked onto a long, fairly complicated sentence. It would probably be better to make this last thought into a complete sentence beginning "Donahue compares Harry's (fill in the blank) with that of Frodo Baggins of J.R.R. Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings". Or something like that.

Living in a corrupted society

"Self-proclaimed Harry Potter pundit John Granger additionally noted that one of the reasons the Harry Potter books were so popular is their use of literary alchemy (similar to Romeo and Juliet, C. S. Lewis's Perelandra and Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities) and vision symbolism." - What does this mean? What is "literary alchemy" and how does it affect the three novels given as examples? What is vision symbolism? This sort of jargon needs to be explained or omitted.

Marketing and promotion

I'd think about changing the numbered list to straight prose per WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists. The seven questions are probably not important enough to warrant special formatting that makes them stand out on the page.

Price wars and other controversies

"Yishai indicated that he would issue indictments and fines based on the Hours of Work and Rest Law." - Since this happened in 2007, did anything come of it? Did Yishai issue indictments?

Critical response

"They also praised the second half of the novel... " - Who is "they"?

"Catherine Bennett of The Guardian praised Rowling for putting small details from the previous books... " - Maybe "repeating" rather than "putting"?

Translations

"The Hindi translation Harry Potter aur Maut ke Tohfe (हैरी पॉटर और मौत के तोहफे) translated as "Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death" was released by Manjul Publication in India on 27 June 2008." - To avoid the repetition of "translate", maybe this would be better: The Hindi translation "Harry Potter aur Maut ke Tohfe (हैरी पॉटर और मौत के तोहफे)", which means "Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death", was released by Manjul Publication in India on 27 June 2008.

Notes

The direct external link in the notes should instead become an in-line citation done in the usual manner. It will automatically appear in the Reference section, just as though it were in the main text.

References

The publication date in citation 40 is in the wrong format. It should conform to the date formatting in the other citations.

Citation 100 should identify the language of the source document.

Bibliography

These should be listed alphabetically by author's last name.

Images

I would make the Borders image slightly smaller to avoid displacing an edit button or overlapping slightly into the "Awards and honours" section on some computer screens. Alternatively, you might combine "Awards and honours" with "Sales" to make a bigger section.

The J.K. Rowling image overlaps sections and displaces edit buttons. I would consider moving her to a large section, where overlap and displacement are not problems.

I don't think two fair-use images are necessary for a reader's understanding of the material. I'd suggest deleting the cover art for the paperback edition. Specifically, I believe it fails WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments Since I peer-reviewed this before, I looked at it again. This is not a complete review by any means, but one worry I had was the lack of books cited. There are only 5 book sources cited in the Bibliography, 2 of which are previous HP books. Of the 3 books left, 2 were originally published beore Deathly Hallows (DH) was released (though one of these has apparently been updated). That leaves only 1 book on DH originally published after the novel came out. Since it is now nearly 4 years since DH appeared, I worry that the article would fail to meet the comprehensive criterion for FAs (1b). A quick look at the first few pages on Google Books finds several books which look like they should be consulted and probably used in this article (as well as a bunch of fan cruft - HP quiz books, etc.):

Note that I did not look more than 3 or 4 pages in to the Google Books. I also note that there are not really any articles from scholarly journals (I did not search for these, but in almost 4 years it seems as it there should be some). As it is a large number of the refs are to news accounts and reviews that came out within a short time of the book's release, and to various editions of the book itself.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
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). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]