Talk:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone/GA2

GA Review

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

Will begin review shortly. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1: well-written

Main comment

• The plot summary is extremely long. I think it can be pruned. There's a lot of detail here, down to dialogue - nother new pupil, the arrogant Draco Malfoy, approaches them with his beefy sidekicks Crabbe and Goyle and offers to help Harry to avoid "the wrong sort", but Harry retorts that he can already recognise "the wrong sort". - and moments that only took up a sentence or two in the original text: While Harry is relaxing after dinner, Professor Snape glares at him. That's an unnecessary level of detail and a violation of summary style. These are not the only instances of an excessive level of detail, only examples. Ricardiana (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Smaller stuff

• In general, parenthetical clauses at the beginning of a sentence should be punctuated, and in general they aren't in this article. Examples: Guided by Hagrid he buys the books - A month later Harry leaves the Dursleys' home - While on the train Harry makes friends. "However" also starts off many sentences; when it does, it should have a comma immediately following.
• Hermione is repeatedly described as "bossy". It's repetitive.
• Jo Rowling - while I appreciate the footnote, it's best to refer to the author consistently throughout the article - by full name first off, and last name thereafter. The introduction of the fact that she is used to being called Jo is interesting, but jarring, and more appropriate to her own article.
• n what was apparently the first published review, in The Scotsman on 28 June 1997, Lindsey Fraser, who had supplied one of the blurb comments,[16] described - this is a lot of clauses before getting to the main verb!
• Verb tense - Rowling demanded the principal cast be kept strictly British, but allowing
• The last sentence of the article is introduced abruptly.
• There are a number of comma splices, for example in footnote 1 The film's version of this incident is different from the book's, see Rowling, J.K. and because details that look insignificant foreshadow important events or characters much later in the story-line, for example Sirius Black is briefly mentioned near the beginning
• There are various typos in the article - for example: Harry Potter is an orphan whom Rowling imagined as a "scrawny, black-haired, bespectacled boy who didn't know he was a wizard",[2] She developed; --- Voldemort's attack left a Z-shaped scar on Harry's forehead,<! -- p 45 -->[3].Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

• Barry Cunningham, who was building a portfolio of distinctive fantasies by new authors for Bloomsbury Children's Books, recommended accepting the book, and the eight-year-old daughter of Bloomsbury's chief executive said it was "so much better than anything else." What is the source being quoted here? Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this site a reliable source?
• What makes this site a reliable source?
• What makes this site a reliable source?

Ricardiana (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Harry Potter Lexicon and MuggleNet (at least inside the fan community, ) are highly regarded, I'm pretty sure MuggleNet has some sort of co-operation or agreement with WB and Scholastics as news outlet and have some contact with them. If you're talking about the claims on the linked pages, The HPL sources the New York Times on two of the three, the first one I can find a separate source from an interview with the editor (or what he is from Scholastics) [1] it's a transcript from the Podcast of The Leaky Cauldron (PotterCast) which as MuggleNet have some sort of co-operation with WB and Scholastics. Go from the question MA: Right. So you got the rights. And, the big decision and down. The MuggleNet article seems to source Scholastics. (All these three sites have gotten Fan Site award by JKR her self [2][3]) chandler ··· 07:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Great - if Rowling herself approves, that sounds fine. Ricardiana (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Looks good here. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

Looks fine here. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

Seems good here, minus the semi-protection. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

• File:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.jpg - is perfectly OK to use, but I think the image description needs to be formatted in the standard fashion. I'll try to do this myself.  Doing...
• File:Voldemort in Movie 1.jpg - Fair Use Rationale needs to explain how the article - specifically, the reader's understanding - is enhanced by the picture.

• I would say this image is more appropriate in the film article or in the Voldemort article (to describe how he's depicted for the first time in the films). chandler ··· 06:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Harris Dumbledore CoS.jpg - again, you need to explain how the reader's understanding is enhanced by the picture. Saying that it's used a lot already isn't good enough. Ricardiana (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would say it isnt needed in this article as it's a screen from the second film. chandler ··· 07:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed again. Ricardiana (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ricardiana, thanks for reviewing this so promptly. Where I respond to your comments, I'll copy them first, as some may generate a fair bit of discussion. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

• The plot summary is extremely long (Ricardiana)

It's longer than I would like. I thought the previous version was rather long, but I also noticed serious gaps. Reviewers have commented that: this is a detective story; JKR has a habit of introducing important points as "sleepers" whose significance becomes apparent much later. The version before I started editing was incoherent because it omitted links in the chain of events and deductions. I made several attempts to slim it down, see this diff. Items I cut, possibly before that diff, include: Harry's first meeting w Draco, in Diagon Alley; his first meeting w Hermione and Neville, on the Hogwarts Express; the 2nd Quidditch match. If you can see specific cuts that won't break chains, please let me know. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, one thing to consider is pruning, not by cutting any information, but by making the wording more concise. I'll take a look later and see how far that gets us (probably not very far). I'll also make a more complete list of things I think could be cut, and you can respond as you've been doing. Ricardiana (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Draco Malfoy, approaches them with his beefy sidekicks Crabbe and Goyle and offers to help Harry to avoid "the wrong sort", but Harry retorts that he can already recognise "the wrong sort" is an unnecessary detail ((Ricardiana))

Both reviewers and Dumbledore (at the ends of some later books, at considerable length) point out that people are shaped by their decisions. The first decision Harry makes for himself is his rejection of Draco's pure-blood supremacist views. This begins in first meeting w Draco, in Diagon Alley, which I cut because Harry's retort that he could recognise "the wrong sort" is much more explicit. It influences Harry's strong desire not to be "sorted" to Slytherin, and therefore has huge causal impact. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in terms of Harry's desire not to be sorted to Slytherin, I think that's covered elsewhere in the summary. Since the issue of choice is one discussed by reviewers, perhaps this bit belongs with the discussion of the text's reception. Do reviewers mention it as an example? Ricardiana (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember a reviewer citing any of this specifically as an instance of how people are shaped by their decisions - I remember the "shaped by one's decisions" point most clearly from one of the religious articles. However the conversation between Harry & Dumbledore in the 2nd book, Chamber of Secrets (pp 242-243) discusses Harry's desire not to be placed in Slytherin, i.e. Rowling thought it significant. The Sorting Hat scene (back to book 1) underlines the Draco connection with "the hat had barely touched his [Draco's] head when it screamed, 'SLYTHERIN!'" - Harry's meeting with the Hat starts 6 lines below.(p 90) As I said, more than 1 passage describes Harry's distaste for Draco's behaviour and attitudes, and I picked one that was very explicit and easily summarised (on the train, about avoiding "the wrong sort"). --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps this detail can be mentioned in the Chamber of Secrets article. My point is that you don't need to quote dialogue to make your point. You could simply indicate that Harry meets Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle, and notices they are arrogant and unpleasant.Ricardiana (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article currently says

Another new pupil, the arrogant Draco Malfoy, approaches them with his beefy sidekicks Crabbe and Goyle, offers to help Harry to avoid "the wrong sort", but Harry retorts that he can already recognise the wrong sort.

Right now the best alternative I can think of that makes the point is:

Another new pupil, Draco Malfoy, accompanied by his beefy sidekicks Crabbe and Goyle, offers to advise Harry, but Harry dislikes Draco's arrogance and prejudices.

--Philcha (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced sentence as above. --Philcha (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• "While Harry is relaxing after dinner, Professor Snape glares at him ... an unnecessary level of detail" (Ricardiana)

It's the beginning of Harry's suspicion of Snape, which leads the "gang of three" along a mistaken investigative path until the denouement with Quirrell. The plot summary includes other incidents that reinforce Harry's suspicion of Snape. Harry's suspicion of Snape gets stronger throughout the series; it's less important in plot terms in books 2 to 4, but becomes important in 5 (Phoenix) and, given that Harry is the hero and therefore will win, is the major issue in book 7 (Deathly Hallows). --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course it's important - everything that happens is important - but the point is that for summary style one has to make some sacrifices. Is there no way to make clear the burgeoning of Harry and Snape's antagonistic relationship without this particular detail? Or perhaps this detail can stay and some other can go. The point to be made is the relationship between H&S - what must remain in order for that relationship to be communicated? Ricardiana (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There are 2 aspects to the Harry-Snape relationship. One is the personal animosity, initiated by Snape and explained in book 6 (Half-Blood Prince). I cut that from the plot summary, although I thought it worth referring to Snape's behaviour in the "Characters" section, where it also provides a contrast with McGonnagall's. The other is the series of events that led Harry to think Snape was a supporter of Voldemort, which leads him on a false trail in this book and has consequences in books 5 and 7. The incident after dinner is the beginning of that series. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This goes back to the question, as I discuss below, of whether or not you need to include every detail that leads up to an important point, in this case Harry's suspicions of Snape, or whether one or two details will do to make that point. You want to include the glare, the wound, and so on and so forth. I think you can cut a few details as long as readers walk away understanding that Snape doesn't like Harry and Harry is suspicious of Snape's loyalty. We disagree on this, and I don't feel like arguing with you, as you aren't amenable to my suggestions unless they are minor and easily fixed, and not always even then. For this reason, I've asked for a second reviewer, and perhaps that person will agree wholeheartedly with you. Ricardiana (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

After another look, I think the Snape item that could be cut without losing connections is about Snape's prowling during the troll incident. --Philcha (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Snape's prowling during the troll incident. --Philcha (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I can see 2 1 ways to shorten the summary without breaking chains:
  • "The Hat assigns most pupils instantly – particularly when sending Draco, Crabbe and Goyle to Slytherin – but has a telepathic discussion with Harry ...". What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Retracted. The summary needs to cover the fact that Harry knows Draco is destined for Slytherin. There's some discussion of that in Diagon Alley, but I cut that scene from the summary. Somewhere early in the book Ron comments that most of the evil wizards were Slytherin alumni, but I can't remember if it says Draco is heading for Slytherin; and on the train Ron confirms that Voldemort is a Slytherin alumnus. I think the current text is the most concise way to explain Harry's aversion to joining Slytherin. --Philcha (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but I should point out that you want to keep this in order to explain Harry's aversion to Slytherin, and the "wrong sort" bit above for the exact same reason. That's two details that are doing the same job, according to you. I'm not saying the details aren't important, but in order to prune each sentence should be doing its own work, not duplicating the work of another. Ricardiana (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the chain consists of the following links: Harry despises Draco's attitudes; Harry knows Draco is bound for Slytherin; Harry does not want to be in Slytherin. Other incidents also tell Harry that Draco is bound for Slytherin, but I think the Sorting Hat's instant response to Draco is the one that can be slipped in most concisely. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The question here is whether every "chain" should be kept in all its links, or whether some can be pruned. I say there's pruning to be done. You obviously disagree and feel that nearly everything must be included. I'm tabling further discussion of this until I make the list I already said that I would make. Once I've made that list, I'll put the article on hold, and you'll have a week to make the changes, or not - your call. Of course it will also be my call whether or not to pass the article, in the end. Please also see my comment below under "Images", and my comment re: reliability of sources. Bottom line - don't tell me that I'm wrong, and don't respond to every suggestion of pruning by detailing why X is important. That's not on point; I've already said the details are important - the relevant point here is, is it important enough to include? Why - what work is it doing? Is any other detail accomplishing the same end? This brings us back to the question of including all links of all "chains", where we simply differ. I myself am more and more leaning towards concision of expression over elimination of detail. Perhaps what I will do is simply write a plot summary instead of making a list. Either way, I'm not going to continue to argue over whether X is important when I've already conceded that it is and that's not where my objection currently lies. Ricardiana (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If the plot summary omits an important causal link, someone will add it later, probably verbosely. Since a visible gap in the causal web is a defect, it would be hard to argue against this. OTOH if we agree a summary that has no serious gaps, that will provide a strong defence against additions of cruft. I suggest we work back from the denouement, and see what events support that. It may also be desirable to summarise incidents on which critics' comments are based. I hope I've already eliminated the "nice to haves", some of which I've mentioned in this discussion. However working back from the denouement many identify others. --Philcha (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW Brand Royalty says, "They are stories, with a heavy emphasis on plot. Put simply, a lot happens." (p. 59). --Philcha (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A few more small cuts:

• Replaced "As Harry and his two friends are preparing to slip out, Neville tries to force them back as he thinks they risk expulsion from the school, but Hermione paralyses him with a spell. Covered by the Invisibility Cloak, the three go ..." with "Covered by the Invisibility Cloak, Harry and his two friends go ..."
• A few minor tweaks in the wording, see this diff --Philcha (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Reduce the account of the obstacles the "gang of three" meet on the way to Harry's showdown with Quirrell/Voldemort. E.g.

    After lifting the trap-door, they fall into a web of the magical plant Devil's Snare, but Hermione burns it with a spell and they all slide through into a corridor below. At the end they find a room that contains a swarm of flying keys and, on the far side, a locked door that is impervious to any spell Hermione knows. Harry jumps on a broomstick lying on the floor, and catches a key that looks different from the rest. After opening the door, they enter a room where the floor is a giant chessboard, with pieces larger than the children. In order to start a game, the three have to take the places of some Black pieces. As the game proceeds, captured pieces are hammered down before being removed. Ron sacrifices himself so that Harry can checkmate the White King, and he and Hermione can proceed. The next room contains seven bottles and a cryptic rhyme, which tells them that drinking one of the bottles will enable a person to move forward, while three contain deadly poison. After Hermione solves the puzzle, she returns to find Ron while Harry drinks the bottle that enables him to proceed. In the next room they encounter a series of obstacles, each of which requires special skills possessed by one of the three, and one of which requires Ron to sacrifice himself. In the final room Harry, now alone, finds Quirrell, who binds Harryhim with magical ropes. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - as Ron would say. Ricardiana (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prose

• "In general, parenthetical clauses at the beginning of a sentence should be punctuated, and in general they aren't in this article. Examples: Guided by Hagrid he buys the books - A month later Harry leaves the Dursleys' home - While on the train Harry makes friends. "However" also starts off many sentences; when it does, it should have a comma immediately following." (Ricardiana)

I think this is a "dialect" issue. You're an American, I'm a Brit and this article is about a book written in UK English by a British author. I can't remember the name of the relevant MOS guideline but it clearly states that choice of "dialect" is up to editors but that articles about British topics should use British English. British prose style uses commas a lot less than American. In particular, "However, .." is considered incorrect in the UK - "however" is just a fancy version of "But ...", which would never be followed by a comma unless immediately followed by certain types of subordinate or peer-level clause that are separate from the one introduced by "But ...".

If you want an independent view I may be able to call in a Brit who's regarded as a very good prose stylist - and speaks his mind without fear or favour :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the differences between British and American punctuation conventions, and this is a typically British style. However, I would like to see a British style guide or grammar book that justifies common British usage. Over here, practically everyone misuses apostrophes, but no American grammar book authorizes such national embarrassments as "plum's - 35 cents" or - even more likely - "MONSTER TRUCK'S - TODAY!". (Not that I'm comparing those dreadful things to what you're doing - some missing commas aren't that big a deal - I just understand them to be ungrammatical.) So, yes, another opinion would be helpful here - I wonder, is the Brit Brianboulton by any chance? I would certainly go by his opinion. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen an English grammar for ... (censored). "Justifies"? Pu-leeze, this is not French! So I think a 2nd opinion is the way to go. I don't know Brianboulton, but have no objections to your calling him in if you think that's useful. --Philcha (talk)

I'm asking for a second opinion on the article. I don't think it's silly to ask for more than local common usage when every grammar book and style guide I've seen says otherwise, but we'll see what the second reviewer thinks. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have time to give a second opinion on all the issues here but I will say that I'm British, have a degree in English and have always been taught to use a comma after 'however'. Cavie78 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Hermione is repeatedly described as "bossy"" (Ricardiana)

I've just text-searched, and "bossy" appears exactly twice, in "Plot" and in "Characters". The character description would be incomplete without it. In "Plot" it's a very modest, concise hint that at first Harry and Ron dislike her intensely, and she only becomes their friend after the troll incident. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, do what you like here. Myself, I'd go with a synonym at one point. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Jo Rowling - while I appreciate the footnote, it's best to refer to the author consistently throughout the article - by full name first off, and last name thereafter" (Ricardiana)

In principle I agree, but Ms Rowling had other ideas :-( She does not like to be called "Joanne", and "Joanne Rowling" appears only on the book's copyright page, for legal reasons; in the later books "J.K. Rowling" was a recognised trading name and is used in copyright pages. "J.K. Rowling" was invented at quite a late stage in production, and a bibliographic web page I cited says there are a few review drafts attributed to "Joanne Rowling" - worth thousands to collectors, of course. So in the early stages described in "Development", the author was "Jo Rowling" everywhere except on her birth and marriage certificates. Apart from that and the adoption of the nom de plume, the article consistently says simply "Rowling". I think it's as least as clear as the handling of the name issue at e.g. Judy Garland.--Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this the information in the footnote belongs in the text, if it's that important. I guess my point is this: the info is fine. The presentation is jarring. An explanation up front, rather than in a footnote, would reduce the jarring effect. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see what you mean, but this article is about the book rather than the author. How about "Jo Rowling, as she preferred to be known,[ref] ..."? -Philcha (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Inserted "Jo Rowling, as she preferred to be known, ..." --Philcha (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• "In what was apparently the first published review, in The Scotsman on 28 June 1997, Lindsey Fraser, who had supplied one of the blurb comments,[16] described ... - this is a lot of clauses before getting to the main verb! (Ricardiana)

Conjugating clauses, Batman, you're right! I've split it. What do you think? --Philcha (talk)

Much better - looks great. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Verb tense - Rowling demanded the principal cast be kept strictly British, but allowing .." (Ricardiana)

Fixed, I think. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The last sentence of the article is introduced abruptly." (Ricardiana)

Do you mean "In 2000 toymaker Hasbro licensed the right to introduce products based on the Harry Potter universe, including real-world analogues of Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans"? I could prefix it with "Brown remarked that ...", but to me that's fluff - another dialect issue? --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I mean, and I don't think you need to shove in cotton wool in order to get a smooth transition ("So-and-so says" is never a particularly smooth transition anyway). You just need to make some connection between the two: First you quote Brown, who recommends marketing the daylights out of Harry Potter. Then you mention that Hasbro has plans for just that. Seems cause / effect - is it? If so, then there's your transition - something like "As a result, Hasbro" -- or "In an attempt to capitalize on blah blah" - whatever. Ricardiana (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "For example a real-world analogue of Bertie Bott's Every Flavour Beans was introduced under licence in 2000 by toymaker Hasbro", which I think manages to steer between the Scylla of plagiarism and the Charybdis of OR - and the whatever of belly-button lint :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "There are a number of comma splices, for example in footnote 1 The film's version of this incident is different from the book's, see Rowling, J.K. ... and because details that look insignificant foreshadow important events or characters much later in the story-line, for example Sirius Black is briefly mentioned near the beginning..." (Ricardiana)
  • "different from the book's, see Rowling, J.K. ..." is an attempt to be concise, as it's a footnote. --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's still a comma splice! Why can't you just use a semi-colon? It doesn't change anything but the grammar. Ricardiana (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

semi-colon used. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree re "... much later in the story-line, for example Sirius ..." and have split it with ndash. --Philcha (talk)
• "There are various typos in the article - for example: Harry Potter is an orphan whom Rowling imagined as a "scrawny, black-haired, bespectacled boy who didn't know he was a wizard",[2] She developed; --- Voldemort's attack left a Z-shaped scar on Harry's forehead,<! -- p 45 -->[3]" (Ricardiana)
  • I think I've fixed those you listed. Any others? --Philcha (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• BTW thanks for this copyedit. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, of course. Ricardiana (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes this site a reliable source?

Dunno how that slipped through - never mind WP:RS, its content is negligible. Replaced w ref name="Eccleshare2002GuidePublishing" --Philcha (talk)

• What makes this site a reliable source?

Interview w Rowling, covers the specific point that Rowling suggested Sorceror's Stone. Rowling and Bloomsbury are famously tough on any misrepresentation, so I'm confident that the quote accurately reflects the content of what JKR said. I've added ref name="Eccleshare2002GuidePublishing" to support change and reason, but that does not cover Rowling's coining the US title. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• What makes this site a reliable source?

See chandler's comment above. As I said, Rowling and Bloomsbury are tough on any misrepresentation. The alternatives are sales pages such as Amazon's. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:RS starts with the banner below, containing the words "it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". WP:RS is based on the faulty assumption that incorporation plus certain other management overheads confer reliability. It works OK for academic sources, but only by accident. WP:RS falls apart when applied to non-academic sources, see User:Philcha#About_reliable_sources. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, schooling me I see. I like your boldness. Yes, I've read all this; and the real point of the policy, as I understand it, is to discourage non-academic sources (discussion of "reliability" in this day of tenured profs plagiarizing from their grad students is, of course, nonsense, and only a cover-up here for the real reason). As an academic who'd like to get and keep a job, I must say I'm in favor of this with childlike intensity. In any case, however, I've been told at FAC and during GA reviews of my own stuff that any "unreliable" article is reliable if a "reliable" person / entity says so. Rowling is reliable, of course, so if something has her imprimatur it is fine. Ricardiana (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Not boldness, payback for reliable source (wikilink) >-)

"discussion of "reliability" in this day of tenured profs plagiarizing from their grad students" - ROFL!

"Rowling is reliable, of course" - why does my screen seem to have its tongue in its cheek? --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused, but a GA isn't really about payback. Ricardiana (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Images

• File:Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.jpg

I'm surprised the article got away away for so long w/o a FUR for the book cover, and have added one to the image page. --Philcha (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Voldemort in Movie 1.jpg

Made FUR more specific. --Philcha (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• File:Harris Dumbledore CoS.jpg

I would have preferred a copy of the back cover of the UK p/b edition, but found none.

"Saying that it's used a lot already isn't good enough" misrepresents what the FUR says, which is "Illustrate 2nd / 3rd most important character (Voldemort may tie for 2nd) - reviewers note that appearance signals personality in the series" --Philcha (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[4] you mean that one or perhaps [5] this one? I'm not sure which one is the first printing (But I'm pretty sure I have the later on my book, which I currently can't check though) chandler ··· 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The former is what I'm looking at right now. --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, please do me the courtesy of not implying that I am "misrepresenting" things. I could have been honestly mistaken, not mendacious. In any case, here is the truly relevant wording: "This image is used on various websites, so its use on Wikipedia does not make it significantly more accessible or visible than it already is." Again, in future, don't imply that I am misrepresenting things, and don't select quotations that aren't relevant to my point and act as if they are. Ricardiana (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the misrepresentation was malicious. I make mistakes when GA-reviewing, and have a range of creative excuses, licensable for a very reasonable fee. I think you must have been looking at some other FUR when you typed your comment - how may browser tabs do you have open? -Philcha (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I've given you the direct quotation. I don't need any cute comments or excuses or further (!) implications that I am incompetent. I'm asking for a second opinion on the review, as you don't seem amenable to most of my suggestions. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind looking again, please, all the way down the image page? --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Assessment/Second Opinion

Although I'm not a more experienced GA assessor in wikipedia, I am an experienced editor. I've read this over, and have some comments ...

• first, length, particularly of the plot summary. the plot summary is quite long, and could be edited down by deleting the wordiness, but not breaking the story line. I agree with Ricardiana that several of the sentences offer a level of detail unnecessary in the plot summary.
  • Agreed; however, a few changes were made. Ricardiana (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• second, punctuation and other technical problems. I fixed some of the punctuation problems, but it really needs a good copy edit -- I suggest the guild of copy editors, of which I am one (but I don't have time to take this on).
  • Someone fixed a number of misspellings, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• third, the "chains," such as the problem of "the right sort" and knowing the Draco is headed for Slytherin (from whence come the evil wizards). It would probably be useful to include that not in the plot summary, but instead in one of the sections in which you discuss the novels' so called lessons. There are several such instances that reviewers used to illustrate their discussion of the lessons of the stories, this would be well-placed in the context of that discussion. Taking this level of detail out of the plot s u m m a r y and putting it into the analysis of the story(ies) makes sense to me.
  • Again agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• fourth, while some fan sites are very well done, I prefer to see them in the category of "see also", perhaps even labeled as fan sites, rather than as "reliable sources." On the other hand, Rowling's site, and the publisher's site, and any "authorized" Harry Potter site could be a reliable source. (The librarian in me makes such distinctions, but I may be obsessive about this.)
  • I think that the sites that remain meet WP:Reliability. Ricardiana (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• fifth, over all, I don't find any major problems with this. It is very thorough -- perhaps more thorough in the plot summary than it needs to be -- verifiable, illustrated, nicely written (although with some easily fixed technical issues).
  • Agreed.
• finally, Ricardiana has done a magnificent job in assessing this work, offered detailed comments on how to improve it, and has dedicated a significant amount of time. Her suggestions will legitimately improve the work. With minor tweaking, this should certainly be a GA status work....imh(second)o, --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great - we finally have a second opinion. I'll consider the article on hold and check back in in a week to see what changes have been made. Ricardiana (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Made a few minor tweaks as suggested above. Still think it would be a big mistake to breal causal links in the main plot: less helpful to readers; will encourage later and probably more verbose additions. --Philcha (talk)

PS Literary Encyclopedia: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, by an academic, appears to have at least as detailed a plot summary. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My institution doesn't subscribe to the LE, so I can't read their entire summary. If it's as long as yours, and I've said I think yours is overly long, I would be a bit of a toady to capitulate now. Both I and the second reviewer think the summary is overly long. If the Harry Potter articles were my babies, I would put "chains" in an article of their own, with critical commentary, and shove them out of plot summaries entirely, thus leaving the plot summaries free to be summaries of the individual book in question rather than carrying the weight of the series. ~However, the article has improved, and I believe meets the GA criteria; my opinion, however strongly I hold it, regarding the plot summary does not bar this from qualifying as a GA. Ricardiana (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)