Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hamtechperson 01:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Taking over review: As the initial reviewer appears to have given up I am taking over this review. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: I fixed three disambiguations.diff

Linkrot: I fixed three and tagged nine dead links.diff

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   In the US, the IMAX version was delayed by 2 weeks because of a Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen several week commitment. Clumsy phrasing.

   The film was released instead in IMAX 3D on 29 July, two weeks after its original release, in these countries. These countries? I thought from the previous sentences that this just applied to one, the US?

   It is also the second highest-grossing film of 2009 (behind Avatar), grossing $934 million, which places the film as the 9th highest grossing movie of all time. possibly dated sentence.

   Since February 2007, Stuart Craig, the production designer of the first five films as well, has been designing sets, including the cave, and the astronomy tower, where the climax of the film takes place. wrong tense, dated statement. This sentence should be consolidated into the 'Set section.

   Overall the prose could do with a brush up throughout.

   Satisfactory now

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Nine dead links as noted above.

   Inconsistent formatting of references, source, author and date should be added where applicable. If citation templates are used for some references, they should be used for all.

   ref #2 [1] looks like a forum, not a WP:RS

   ref #24 [2] is a forum posting, not RS

   ref #26 [3] doesn't support the cited statement, it says that Scarleet Byrne played Pansy.

   ref #27 [4] is a forum, likewise ref #28

   ref #29 [5] is a fan site, not RS, likewise ref #31

   ref #32 [6] is a fan site

   Snitchseeker is a fan forum. Please read WP:RS and remove all non reliable sources. I can see there are rather a lot here.

   I have tagged the dubious sources, dead links remain. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The revelation of Dumbledore's sexuality prompted Gambon to "camp up" around the set when off camera,[10] but his on-screen performance remained unchanged from the previous films.[11] This doesn't belong in the cast list

   ''Rupert Grint as Ron Weasley, one of Harry's two best friends,[5] who clearly has romantic interest in Hermione "a ronantic interest"

   ''Watson considered not returning for the sixth film,[13] but eventually decided that, "the pluses outweighed the minuses," and could not bear to see anyone else play Hermione Does this belong in the cast list?

   ''Broadbent described his costumes as "tweedy", and his character as "comic",[15] while Radcliffe noted that "[Slughorn's] tragedy will outweigh the comedy".[ Does this belong in the cast list?

   The final paragraph of the cast list section contains a lot of undeed information. A cast list is a cast list, not a place to have stuff like Tiffin is the 11-year-old nephew of Ralph Fiennes, who plays the adult Voldemort in the fourth and fifth films

 Done Guy546^(Talk) 02:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

1. OK, much better. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK on hold for seven days. Main points, go through the prose again to tighten up, remove trivia, remove unreliable sources, format references consistently.

   The outstanding issue is sourcing a large number of unreliable and dubious sources are used. Consequently, I shall not be listing this at that time. please address this and then re-nominate at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, please take this review to WP:GAR for community re-assessment. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Other Users

I'm also checking (not reviewing) the article.

• In general have some issues (e.g. the intro have a lot of "and").
• Also, the references, like Wizardman said need the format <ref>{{cite web|url= |title= |last=(If have author) |first=(If have author) |authoulink=(If have author) |publisher= |work= |date=(If have date)|accessdate= (all '''must''' have this)|language=(If it's on another language)}}</ref>.
• Ref 99 have a redlink (Box Office Mojo.com) -> Box Office Mojo

Be careful with this details. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Also 6 dead links. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)