Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:31, 15 February 2011 [1].

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows edit

Nominator(s): Guy546^(Talk), Glimmer721 20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked very hard on this article (along with a companion), and I think it is of FA quality. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 20:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film section seems wimpy, are there no critics who make comparisons to the book? I would be very surprised if the commentary doesn't include some kind of discussion of comparison, which would be very appropriate here, Sadads (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy546^(Talk) 03:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence, fourth paragraph of "themes", the quote by Rowling uses "to" instead of "too". The citation is from a book, but that should be checked and either fixed or marked as subject's mistake. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Guy546^(Talk) 16:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The themes section is very abrupt, confronting the reader immediately with the various perspectives of critcs. Please have both summary sentences at the beginning of each paragraph explaining what the reader is supposed to see as the organizing principle and a paragraph at the beginning which summarizes it, giving a big picture perspective on themes. Right now it is very detailed, but the prose makes it hard to read. Summaries will make the section read much smoother (you may want to see if you can do this with other sections too, though I don't think it stands out as much in the other sections), Sadads (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy546^(Talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think so, you still go directly into the opinions of the critics in each paragraph, and don't tell the reader what to expect. Notice how the first sentence in each theme subsection at Jonathan_Strange_&_Mr_Norrell#Themes, opens with a very general statement, before focusing on all very similar comments from different reviewers. Currently the theme section is structured in such a way that there is no easy way to predict what should be focused on, and sometimes the paragraph seem to not have a cohesive purpose, such as Themes section paragraphs 1, 2, and 4, Sadads (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose' per above comments (you need to really think about structure and expansion a but more) and stylistic and paraphrasing problems from Truthkeeper and Twiligtoves. If you are looking for someone to give a good comprehensive copyedit, I have gotten good work from User:SMcCandlish and User:Dtgriffith in the past. I encourage some clean up, and another nomination, Sadads (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose -

First of all, congrats on taking on this ambitious task. On a quick scan, I'm seeing some WP:MOS issues. Take some time reviewing quotation rules and fix accordingly. Specific issues I see are ellipsis in brackets, and punctuation inside of quotation marks (only if WP:LQ). Also, non-breaking spaces need to be added for dates and such. Will return as I have time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More MoS issues - the translations don't have to be bolded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-checking shows some problems. This from the source: "Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster (“McGonagall was really getting on a bit”) as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at Hogwarts, since Voldemort’s death broke the jinx that kept a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year."
- This from our text: "Voldemort's jinx on the Defense Against the Dark Arts position was broken with his death, and there was a permanent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher appointed. Harry also is said to come to the Defense Against the Dark Arts class to lecture several times a year.[4]"

Done, I've changed it to the following:
Voldemort's jinx on the Defence Against the Dark Arts position was broken with his death, and so a newly appointed Defence Against the Dark Arts professor was able to teach more than a year.
Glimmer721 ^talk 22:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a combination of close paraphrasing and material that's not in the source. For the moment I've changed to oppose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - The problem is that a few words are simply being shoved around and interchanged, which still is considered WP:Close paraphrasing. The quote lacks attribution as well. I've also found a few direct quotes that haven't been integrated accurately. It's important to copy a quotation word-for-word. I see this has been through Peer Review and very much agree with the comments there - my sense is that it's not yet ready for FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've fixed this particular sentence by converting to a direct quote and attributing to Rowling. Will continue to spot-check, though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's another example of close paraphrasing. From the article: "Mary McCauley of The Baltimore Sun stated that the novel was a classic bildungsroman, and said that a "saving grace" theme of the series is a parent's love"
    - From the source: "Taken as a whole, the Harry Potter series is a classic bildungsroman, or coming-of-age tale." I can't find the statement about the parents' love in the source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed. Guy546^(Talk) 02:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Okay, apparently that isn't working. Go to this. Thanks,~~ Guy546^(Talk) 02:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Never mind. Aparently the link was an archive and that was it. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 02:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Commentary and supplement" section needs considerable trimming. The article should focus on the work - not on what was trimmed or never added to the work. It's fine to mention that material was trimmed, the plot tweaked, etc, but not to such a great extent. I'll check back in a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Worked on it the best I could. Guy546^(Talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the MoS fixes. The supplement section still needs trimming, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, so I have removed some unimportant things, but I think their future jobs and the last paragraph is important, in my opinion. Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 00:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is that this article is about the book and that information is not in the book. I was thinking maybe it could be moved elsewhere, either into the article about the series, or the subarticles about the characters. I checked Hermione's article and see that most of the information here is also there, so I'm thinking it's redundant here and really only needs to be in one place. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So should I remove the second paragraph then? Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 01:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Or remove the whole paragraph? Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 01:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My preference would be to see it all gone, but before removing it, it needs to find a place to go. I'm thinking about how to restructure & will post when I think of how best to do this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        From what I see, the stuff about Kingsley is already in his character section (previously linked), ditto with the dementors, why Tonks and Lupin died, Slytherin, DADA, and I've added in the bit about Snape in his article. Should I remove it? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: the article could use a good copyedit from someone who hasn't read the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I ask someone who hasn't edited the article then? Thanks, Guy546^(Talk) 02:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you should find a good copyeditor who hasn't read the article yet. I'm seeing some prose problems but unfortunately don't have the time at the moment to point out everything. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needs considerable work. Nowhere near FA quality prose (1a). Lack of narrative flow, simple grammatical errors (run-on sentences have no place in a GA, let alone an FA), and simplistic sentence structures abound. Content in some sections are random facts cobbled together with no rhyme or reason. Numerous examples, but here are just a few:

From the Background section:

What exactly is this "background" section supposed to achieve? The section reads like a bunch of random trivia thrown together about the development of the book, rather than giving an overview of Rowling's writing process.
"there was a large rumor that Harry would die" What exactly constitutes a "large" rumor? What is the importance of this rumor?
"almost immediately the worldwide press reported this". Almost immediately?
"In another 2006 interview, Rowling almost blurted the title of Deathly Hallows too early before catching herself." A bizarre sentence tacked on to the end of that first paragraph.
"By the time she had an interview with Tatler magazine," Because readers should know by heart when that happens, right? :)
The Title subsection focuses on unimportant information and gives no insight into why Rowling picked the title, or what the reaction to the reveal of the title.

Try reading the beginning of the Themes section, where every single sentence is structured the same way ("<name> <adjective> said/stated/wrote that"), without falling asleep:

"In a 2006 interview, J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, said that..." (also why is she being introduced here again?)
"Lev Grossman of Time stated that..."
"Deirdre Donahue of USA Today said that..."
"Mary McCauley of The Baltimore Sun stated that..."
"Deepti Hajela of Deseret News said that..."
"Elizabeth Hand of the Washington Post said that..."
"John Granger said that..."
"Susan Hall wrote that..."

The critical response section disconcertingly swings back and forth between present and past tense.

Fixed. Glimmer721 ^talk 22:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Novelist Elizabeth Hand agreed that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows caps off the series" Agreed? Agreed with whom? Also, "caps off the series" is hardly an opinion that needs agreement.
" was "not an original, high-concept author", she was "right up there with other greats of children's fiction" Two very different assessments tied together with an ungrammatical comma. TwilligToves (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As stated above, the language, flow and sentence structure are poor, even in the lead (2nd paragraph in particular). It does not satisfy WP:FA criterion 1a, "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Note that "I have worked hard on it" is not a valid argument, see FA info. Poujeaux (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.