Wikipedia

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/Archive 4

< Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Opening paragraph

Latest comment: 13 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to propose the following opening paragraph for this article:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 is a 2010 fantasy-drama film directed by David Yates and the first of two films based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling. It is the seventh instalment in the Harry Potter film series, and is written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman, David Barron, and Rowling. The story follows Harry Potter on a quest to find and destroy the Lord Voldemort's secret to immortality – the Horcruxes. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, alongside Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. The supporting cast features Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman.

Feel free to edit or change it. It follows the form of the good articles Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film). What does everyone else think? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I support your proposal. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your lead is an improvement over the previous introduction. As you say, it is inline with the Good Article Harry Potter film leads. I've made a few tweaks though. Hallows Horcruxes 21:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, although in British English installment is spelled instalment. Also, see changes to the infobox cast listing - so I'd add Rhys Ifans and Bill Nighy. 184.58.177.157 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragraph to the above proposal. See change. If you wish to change the opening paragraph -- then discuss it here before making changes to the article. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, tweaks need to be made. The basis of your lead will still be kept, but a few tweaks here and there are needed for it to be inline with the Part 2 lead (see here). I've also made it more inline with the GA Harry Potter film articles (see here and here), which is what you originally proposed. There's no need to revert as the current lead is concise. Hallows Horcruxes 12:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You have basically reverted the opening paragraph back to what it was. My proposal does not and should need to be inline with Part 2; Part 2 must be kept inline with my proposal. I mean that's the point of a proposal, get something [in this case, the opening paragraph] great for one article first and then adjust the other related articles [in this case, Part 2] accordingly. As for the original opening paragraph being "more inline" with Philosopher's Stone.. I strongly disagree: my proposed lead takes exactly the same form of the Philosopher's Stone opening paragraph. Below, is the form used in Philosopher's Stone.
Film Title is a year genre film directed by director and based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling. It is the ordinal form of a number installment in the Harry Potter film series, and is written by writer and produced by producer 1, producer 2 and producer 3. The story follows ...one sentence plot.... The film stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, alongside Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. The adult/supporting cast features /billing/.
For my Deathly Hallows Part 1 proposal, I have simply filled in the film title, year, genre, director, literary source, ordinal form of a number, writer, producer 1, producer 2, producer 3, a one sentence plot, supporting and billing. I have not added any other information such as that it's Radcliffe's "penultimate performance" as Harry, or given undue weight to Kloves by mentioning him in the opening sentence. The only difference made was to add "the first of two films" to the opening sentence as this is of extreme importance -- this explains in five words that the film is one of two films based on the same book, or the first part of two films based on Deathly Hallows, or simply "Deathly Hallows - Part 1". As for Order of the Phoenix, my proposal takes the same form as that article's opening paragraph too, as of a month ago. It seems the only reason it doesn't match exactly to the same form is that you, yourself, gave Goldenberg undue weight. See difference between revisions on 13-16 May 2011. I will reinstate my proposed lead, unless there is considerable discussion and opposition towards it, or ongoing discussion, etc. For example, if many editors think its very important to note that this film is the penultimate film in the series (and not Radcliffe's penultimate performance as Harry), then fair enough -- we can change it to "It is the seventh and penultimate instalment in the .." Changes to the form used in the opening paragraphs of HP1 & HP5 must be discussed. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, the Philosopher's Stone article has been changed since the last time I checked. The other Potter film articles have "directed by [...], written by [...] and based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling." This includes Order of the Phoenix, which is a Good Article. In your lead for Part 1, you are destroying the formula of the other Potter film articles. You are also adding one too many "ands" which is a common problem with leads. Perhaps if we left the "written by [...]" in the first sentence and erased unnecessary detail (like "penultimate peformance"), we would bring it closer to your proposed lead while keeping the formula of the other Potter film articles intact. But I do not see how having "written by Steve Kloves" and "written by Michael Goldenberg" in the first sentence is undue weight. It's perfectly fine, clear and concise. Like so:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 is a 2010 fantasy-drama film[1][2] directed by David Yates, written by Steve Kloves and the first of two films based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling. The film is the seventh instalment in the Harry Potter film series and is produced by Rowling along with David Heyman and David Barron. The story follows Harry Potter on a quest to find and destroy Lord Voldemort's secret to immortality – the Horcruxes. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, alongside Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. The supporting cast features Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman.

This way, we bring the lead closer to the one you proposed, while erasing unncessary detail and removing the excessive use of "and". It's also inline with the other Potter film article leads. Hallows Horcruxes 12:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for getting rid of some of the (what I think is) useless information. I still think there is a better way of removing the excessive use of "and" in my proposal (and yes, it doesn't involve mentioning the writer's in the opening sentence). Here it is:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 is a 2010 fantasy-drama film directed by David Yates and the first of two films based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling. It is the seventh instalment in the Harry Potter film series, written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman, David Barron and Rowling. The story follows Harry Potter on a quest to find and destroy the Lord Voldemort's secret to immortality – the Horcruxes. The film stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, alongside Rupert Grint and Emma Watson as Harry's best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger. The supporting cast features Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, and Alan Rickman.
All I've done is removed "and is" -- exactly the same as the HP1 article. Oh, and the only other differnce between my proposal and your proposal is that mine has "It is the seventh instalment" rather than your "The film is the seventh instalment" -- Is this okay with you? Then, hopefully its okay with everyone. And we can make this the same lead for every single Harry Potter film article. It'd be nice to make a standard for all these Harry Potter films article. :) I have made a namespace article with all the leads in this format: please see here. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That's great. One point I need to make, however: you have "installment" in your other Potter leads, but the articles should follow the British spelling with one "l", not two. Other than that, I'm happy with it. Hallows Horcruxes 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I've added your leads to the other Potter film articles. Hallows Horcruxes 10:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you're right -- definently one l in instalment. :) Awesome! Very glad we've managed to fix the mess that was. It all looks perfect. THe Chamber of Secrets plot looks good too. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that just calling this movie a "fantasy drama" is kinda weird. I mean, by all means, it's more of an epic than it is a drama.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
All films are dramas on some level, but I wouldn't put it in the genre of "drama". The genre is "fantasy", so the simplest solution is to just call it a fantasy film. No need for all this drama/epic business. Betty Logan (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed with Betty. Also, it would be best to have all the Harry Potter film articles inline as discussed above; by this I mean we use one source to cover each film's genre. As you say, Betty, fantasy film should be enough to cover the genre. Hallows Horcruxes 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm also fine with labeling it a "fantasy film" in the lead sentence. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the "fantasy-drama" genre and placed "fantasy film" instead with the Box Office Mojo site as a source - each Harry Potter film article now has a lead which begins like so: "[Name of film] is a [Year] fantasy film[1; Reference] directed by [Name of Director]". The Box Office Mojo website acts as a reference in all articles to keep consistency. Hallows Horcruxes 20:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a brillant idea. Let's stop the warring.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it's great (and rare) that everyone worked this out and is happy with the result. Good job.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Add in the cinematographer

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For some reason, the credit for the cinematographer in the crew listing is noticeably absent. I don't have the technical expertise to rectify this, so anyone that does, please do it. His name is Eduardo Serra.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.65.67 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken Code fixed

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

saw that the page had broken/visible coding and it totally messed the page up. I helped clean it up and set it right again. Andy_Howard (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Plot deletion/vandalism?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

No plot section. Someone please revert it, I don't know how. Andy_Howard (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job mate, it's fixed. Andy_Howard (talk) 06:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Lots of redirect pages

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have made several redirect pages because the title for this movie and the next one are both not only long, but could also be typed incorrectly. Now, just typing "Deathly Hallows 1" will redirect to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1" and "Deathly Hallows 2" will redirect to "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2". Same with "Deathly Hallows Part 1" and "Deathly Hallows Part 2". I think this is actually convenient, because now there's much less to type in. AndrewOne (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Home media section

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

the reference in the home media section saying that Warner Bros. has announced the ultimate edition for deathly hallows is invalid. that reference mentions no such thing. I can find no verification that the ultimate editions featuring harry potter 3-d glasses in red and cyan or indeed any ultimate edition has been announced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebroxanna (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Budget

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I know the budget is $250 million over both films. I just want some opinions on whether to put $125 on this article and $125 on the other, since the overall budget to the general reader of both articles appears to be $500 million. 2601andrew (talk) 20:31, 31st May 2011 (UTC)

It should be clarified that it's for both films. You can't really split it, because say you have a $20 million set for example, it's not like you have a $10 million dollar set in each film. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
So it's really a question of making it crystal clear to anyone reading the articles, which looks to have been done already. 2601andrew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC).


The budget is not $250 million over both films. There's no evidence to prove this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.37 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Factual Error: Budget

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not a member, or capable of making edits. However, I noticed a factual error in the budget listed for the film. The budget is listed at $250 million, and shared between Part 2. However, if you read the cited article, it makes no mention of the budget of either Deathly Hallows film, except stating it'd be less than Half-Blood Prince's $250 million budget, but more than Sorcerer's Stone's $125 million budget. Warner Brother's has not released the budget for this film. A search for the budget yields other websites who also incorrectly read the article. If you've seen either films, you'd know that it's implausible they could cost a combined $250 million to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.114.37 (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Goodsmudge (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I plan to review this in a while, but glancing over the article it appears to be detailed, informative and neutral. Feel free to disagree with me if I make points that you don't think would beenfit the article. --Goodsmudge (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Review

In progress:

Lead


  • The first paragraph is slightly disorderly, containing elements of both production and plot. I would suggest that these be divided into smaller paragraphs.
  • The sentence "It is the seventh instalment in the Harry Potter film series, written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman, David Barron and Rowling." seems awkward and leaves it up to interpratation whether the series as a whole was written by Kloves and produced by Heyman, Barron and Rowling or just this film in paticular. I suggest putting the information on the writer and producers in the first sentence after "directed by David Yates".
  • I'm not sure if the precise dates of filming should be include in the lead. Perhaps replace it with "Principal photography was conducted through February 2009 to June 2010" or delete that sentence altogether.

Plot

  • Follows the manual of style.
  • Links are provided for all major characters and concepts. I don't think it's a problem now, but be wary of overlinking.
  • No obvious grammar errors.


  • This section has flaws in its writing, such as having sentences which do nit connect with the rest of the paragraph and do not flow with the narrative. I suggest that major rewrites are needed for the plot summary to meet the standards of a good article.
  •   Not done The plot section of articles should be between 400 and 700 words. Having the extra "bloat" (as it has been called), would bring it over this number. The plot is informative and is in the correct order, which is what matters in the plot section of an article on a feature film. See WP:FILMPLOT. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Voldemort commandeers Lucius Malfoy's wand, as Voldemort's own wand cannot be used to kill Harry, their wands being "twins"." is clunky because the repetitive use of "wand" disrupts the flow. Consider replacing the second or / and third "wand" with a pronoun.

Cast

  • Follows the manual of style.
  • Detailed, informative and concise.
  • Easy to read.


  • Consider that charcters such as Molly Weasly that do not have a significant role in this film possibly should not be included.

Production

  • Well laid out and easy to read.
  • Good selection of sourced quotes.
  • Material very well sourced, with many ciatations.
  • Follows the manual of style.
  • Links to various articles of interest.


  • Under sets, I feel that it should be divided into three paragraphs that discuss location filming, the wedding tent and Malfoy Manor.
  • If possible, consider expanding the music subsection.

Distribution

  • Again, very well sourced.
  • Very detailed.
  • Split up into paragraphs.


  • The marketing section may require a clean-up or a better way of presentation, as it can look like an eyesore. Possibly present it as a timeline, table or just clear up the prose.
  • Be wary of said marketing section becoming trivia-like.
  • Under release, consider trimming "On 26 August 2010, director David Yates, producers David Heyman and David Barron along with Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn" to "On 26 August 2010, director David Yates, producers David Heyman and David Barron and Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn, attended" or something resembling the latter to keep it concise.

Reception

  • The critical response is detailed and neutral.
  • Good use of quotes in the critical reception subsection.
  • The accolades section is very well presented and sourced.


  • An obvious mistake in the fourth paragraph under box office, where there is a </ref> visible in the text.
I think that this might be OK to be passed now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review 2

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:--Goodsmudge (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


General

I won't go over every previous point again, but the whole article adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of style and provides a decent level of information in a well-presented and readable format. It's clear, detailed and a has a good general standard of quality.

Lead

There's still a decent level of information in the lead and it presents an overview of all aspects of the article. Aside from matters of writing style / preference (i.e. specific filming dates), I can see no faults in it.

Plot

The plot provides links to other articles, has a decent level of information and follows the guidelines set by WP:FILMPLOT. The mistakes I foundnahve been cleared up, making it readable and informative.

However, I still think that the sentence about Bill and Fleur's wedding should be cut or expanded into a larger summarisation of the event, regardless of the "bloat" you mentioned. As a Harry Potter fan myself, I know that it is a large part of the film / book, but as per Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary ("The basic structure of many narrative plots includes a lengthy middle section during which characters repeatedly get in and out of trouble on their way to the climactic encounter. Although such events are exciting to watch, cutting less important ones can make the plot summary tighter and easier to understand. "), it really should be removed unless you can expand it into something that makes it appear as a more crucial part of the film that it currently does.

Cast

See my notes from yesterday. I disagree that Molly is a major character in this specific film, except during the early Burrow & wedding scenes, but that does not damage the quality of this article. Anyway, a short, concise, well-presented and useful section.

Production

Again, see my earlier notes; it's detailed, well-presented and has a fantastic selection of quotes. The section uses a captioned image well to aid the text, not disrupt it, and it's very well sourced. It's divided into sub-sections which help male it easier to read and skim. A very good piece of writing, except I still find the music section very short and wonder if a better picture would be avaliable.

Distribution

This section is remarkably well-sourced and, as above, is divided into subsections. I would still be wary of "Marketing" becoming trivia, due to it's nature of being collected facts, but presently this is still not an issue. The paragraphs and various subsections help divide up "Distribution", presenting it better than previously.

Reaction

The only problem with this section previously was a minor markup mistake. That's been fixed and the whole section is very good, neutral and well-presented (I really like the awards box thing).

Pass

Congratulations to Thine Antique Pen and the Harry Potter / Wikipedian community who have written this article! Aside from a couple minor niggles, my only real complaint is that I still consider the Plot section not to be written to the standard of the rest of the article. I've passed the article, however and consider it very worthy of being a good article.

Well done and congratulations! --Goodsmudge (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Harry Potter British or British-American

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The author, all major actors and producers are British. One screenplay writer is American and Warner Brothers is an American entertainment company. This does not make the movie British-American. If there were an Australian in the team does Australia get a billing? seems odd that this film is described as British American when othe, similar, Harry Potter films are not. I've edited (again) to remove the American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilly (talk • contribs) 05:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the consensus that was reached on the talk page: [1]. Hope this helps. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) on talk pages. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Lord Sjones23, looks like the same argument has been had and everyone is equally unhappy with the result. So let's leave that one. I'll try the 4 tilde signoff now (didn't know about that). Grant (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Warner Bros. Shop: "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1". Genre: fantasy-drama
  2. ^ British Board of Film Classification (BBFC): "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1". Genre: drama
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_1/Archive_4&oldid=1200047844"