Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Overall, a pretty good start to a good article, and plenty of solid info. That said, here's a rundown of what I consider the biggest issues:

• I think the article needs some restructuring, the most radical to move the pre-release history below plot but before the reception, and to axe a bunch of content, most significantly, the religious debate section. There's a wonderful number of subarticles that are referred to, and I'm not seeing much religious info mentioned that is specific and noteworthy to just the seventh book. Readers are going to get lost without the plot and its lead-in, especially regarding what's so special about some of the hints she dropped, et al.

• Y Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Update the figures? The last information I see for sales is from 2007. Surely there's updated information on how many copies sold?

• The most recent sales figures I could get was from 2008 without shelling out 80 bucks for current information. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The critical response needs to be revamped. Right now it reads as a straightforward list of critics' response, each in their own section. Aside from summarizing their points we need to synthesize. I'm also concerned about a lack of opinions presented; this is freakin' Harry Potter, I'm sure we can find more reputable reviews (if you want, drop me an email and I'll go trawling for newspaper sources and send you PDFs of what I find.) Also, the speed-reading thing is interesting, but if it belongs in the article it doesn't really fit where it is.

• It wasn't too hard to "synthesize" as you put it. I've got some more reviews put in now, let me know if it is still lacking. Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Pertaining to the above on pre-release history; it might be better of the "background" (Rowling's development, et al) be separated from merchandising and marketing. Essentially, make a level two heading "background", and place the Rowling on finishing the book" (any info about her just writing it?) and the choice of titles in there, and then have the marketing, spoiler, leak sections under just plain "Release".

• Still looking for info on her writing it, but I did separate the sections. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, now the biggest suggestion which I know is probably going to make you want to beat your head against a wall: I think the plot could be expanded.

• Haha, I banged my head against the wall at the last Potter GAN I did when the reviewer told me to leave a 2 paragraph summary. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • The plot introduction does an excellent job succinctly, although the structure gets repetitive "in year X, in year Y..." and I'm sure you need some of the yearly dividers. Some more introduction is necessary though. Who are Dumbledore and Snape? What are horcruxes? What about Death Eaters?

• Tried to mix it up and explain the characters. You may wish to check it. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • As for the summary, I think it skims over a tad too much, and once again requires either further elaboration or some generalization, I think the former. For example there's no explanation of what items Voldemort has chosen and why-- who is Gryffindor and Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw? We should mention that they are the school founders somewhere.

• I elaborated more, maybe you want to look at it as above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and fixed what I considered some abrupt shifts, check my grammar though. A bigger issue is the final paragraph. It's not mentioned that Harry is actually a Horcrux and he is essentially killed before returning to life, which I figure would be rather important. Also, the definition of Horcruxes seems suspect--I thought it was that you couldn't die, not that you'd be resurrected. Perhaps it would be best to source some of this, especially in the background where information is drawn from previous books? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, I've referenced the Horcrux statements and fixed them up with references. Malinaccier (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• • More troublingly is that the Deathly Hallows comes out of nowhere in the plot and is not introduced.

• Y Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • In general, it needs an audit (preferably by someone who hasn't read the book) to spot more issues, I'm sure I'm not getting them all, but the glaringly obvious "Order of the Pheonix") should go. Also, watch some of your links; "Battle of Hogwarts" has been a redirect a long time.

• Fixed the link and Order of the Phoenix error. Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• • This plot issue drags over to Rowling's commentary. It's impossible to mention every one of the minor characters in the plot, but that means they require introduction when they are brought up here; otherwise it's a bunch of names that appear to have no connection to what the reader is learning about. Some of this could be cut down and summarized; it's a level of detail no casual reader is going to be able to appreciate.

• Y Should be good now. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Translations and film adaptations are fine.
• Images: File:Sectus-midnight-wait.jpg is free and properly licensed, although you might want to check Flickr's commons and see if there's a better shot that's available (something to catch the scope of the thing? :D) I see nothing wrong with having the US cover as well as the UK kids version, but you might want to mention which version is in the infobox. [Aside: why are all the native British covers utter crap when compared to Scholastic's? It's not like they couldn't afford a decent illustrator Anyhow...] Just beef up the rationales a bit; I recommend the {{Non-free use rationale}} template, myself.

• Y I think the Bloomsbury covers are like that because the books are meant to target children. Interestingly enough, I believe there is an adult version put out by Bloomsbury with a different cover, but I'm not sure where I heard that....Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Misc: Couldn't Scholastic's Seven questions be thrown into the article body? At the very least the placement, sandwiching text between two columns, is poor form (and per the WP:MOS you shouldn't have left-aligned images under level three headings anyhow.)

• Y Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lead: obviously the fourth paragraph is rather extraneous as I said before. It's a shorter article (27KB, 4500 words) so I don't think you need any more than three paragraphs, but once again making the plot blurb a little more accessible would be nice, and making sure there's information about its development as well as its release.

• Y Cut the religious paragraph. Malinaccier (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Better, but you really shouldn't pull quotes from reviewers unless they're really exceptional, or sum up a particular sentiment. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Y removed a few, should be better now. Malinaccier (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• At first pass, the prose looks decent enough for a GA, but I'll take a closer look once the other issues are addressed. Due to the multiple points above, I'm placing the article on hold, but I'm flexible with timing; as long as the work gets done, I don't mind having it on hold for a while.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry that I haven't been able to respond. A member of my family had a seizure and it was unknown whether he would make it (although things look much better now). I'd say the soonest I can get back to you would be Saturday or Sunday. Sorry, Malinaccier P. (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Real world issues take precedence, of course; there's no deadline. Take all the time you need. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think it looks passable enough for a GA now. You might want to run through and delink terms that are overlinked in the article now that some of the content has shifted positions. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, I'll check out those links. Malinaccier (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)