Wikipedia:Peer review/Legal disputes over Harry Potter/archive1

Legal disputes over Harry Potter

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know if it could be pushed to FA level.

Thanks, Serendi^podous 17:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
  • You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
  • http://www.winterbothams.com/pages/news_article.php?id=24 deadlinks
  • Current refs 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 45, 55, and 70 are lacking publisher and/or other required bibliographical information, such as last access dates or authors when known.
  • Either list your referenced authors last name first or first name first. Pick one style and stick to it.
  • Current ref 26 (Legal magic... ) has the author listed in the wrong spot.
  • Sources that are in languages other than English need to have that language noted in the reference.
  • http://www.briffa.com/news/art57potter.htm deadlinked
  • http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20071011/ten-entertainment-india-literature-potte-1dc2b55_1.html deadlinked
  • http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIGNIcztySvpGhm95iGPhNL7ov1AD8SKHF7G1 deadlinks
  • http://www.hp-lexicon.org/whats_new.php deadlinks
  • http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/economy-business-finance/media/book/04010002.topic this takes me to nothing that looks like an article, looks like a search. In theory it's supposed to go to "Harry Potter and the Battle of the Lexicon" but it doesn't.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • http://stallman.org/harry-potter.html
    • http://www.accio-quote.org
    • http://www.hpana.com
    • http://www.eyrie.org/~robotech/stouffer.htm
    • http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/pott-f28.shtml
    • http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.

• While it is clear that the "Allegations of copyright and trademark infringement" section is chronological, I was less sure of the overall idea behind the organization of the article.
• The eBay section is very short - could it be combined with another section or perhaps expanded? There are also several very short paragraphs (one or two sentences) which should also be combined or expanded. The RDR section is especially in need of attention for this.
• RDR also ends oddly - the judge has not yet ruled, but the refs are from April - it is nearly September, surely there has been some progress?
• Also ref 77 is broken
• Legal injunctions - first paragraph needs a ref, provide context for the reader (which book was there an injunction for in 2003? - see WP:PCR
• There is a lot of detail here - for FAC I would be concerned because there does not seem to be much flow between sections (again organization). I would also try to get a similar level of detail in each section (eBay vs RDR - two extremes).

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). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)