Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/GA1

GA Review

I will be reviewing this article.--Finalnight (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed below--Finalnight (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

While the article is moving in a positive direction, it does not meet GA criteria at this time as laid out below. It should be rated "B" though. Good luck with your continued efforts to improve it!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is well written and easy to read with a good flow.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Non-compliant due to excessive detail, plot summarization, and in-universe style of summarization.

The summaries have been shortened as much as I could. Since I did, there have been no more complains on this subject. They might need a bit of rework to present them in a more non-in-universe style, but this was a reason to place on hold, not to fail. diego_pmc (talk)

I failed it so you wouldn't have to deal with the time constraints of a typical 7-day on-hold window as the affected parts comprise almost half the article. Later today, I may present some shortened summaries, I have helped other fictional GA's with this before, its a common but fixable issue.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are sources used very well until the "real version" section where the wheels kind of come off the article.

What exactly do you mean by "cut off" and an example f possible. diego_pmc (talk)

I am not sure what you mean by "cut off", I don't remember writing that anywhere.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)\

I meant "came off". diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The entire second half of the article is uncited. The first half is in good shape. I was somewhat worried about your reliance on a www.leakycauldron.org for so many references, but I researched it usage and discussion on other parts of wikipedia and the community has decided it is a reliable source.

The second half (I guess you mean Synopsis section) is entirely cited, using this link. The link is included in the References section. In-line citation was not used here, as it would have been impractical to cite one source for a whole section. diego_pmc (talk)

The citation should be attached to the header of the section it was used in as that section comprises a large section of the article and is likely to be challenged due to lack of context which means in-line citation should be used according to GA criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also thought about putting the ref in between the == ==, but I don't like the fact that the number of the ref is also shown in the Contents box. Is there a way to make it only show the ref in the actual section title, and not in the contents box as well? Or maybe an introduction should be made in the synopsis section, where the ref would fit well. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   The second half appears to be either content copied from the book or a editor-written summary, I can't tell due to lack of context or citations.

See above. diego_pmc (talk)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The first half of the article gives a fairly broad treatment of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   The second half of the article uses uncited, in-universe and overly detailed summaries of the tales. Does not follow WP:PLOT. This was noted previously in the talk page discussions but not acted upon.

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars per say, but I noticed a number of unresolved disputes in the discussion and there has been enormous changes to the article over the last couple of weeks and that seems to be still going on.

Since I shortened the summaries Phoenixrod has not posted any more comments, his last objection being in May. About the changes: they have not been controvesil, except one in which Man in Black complained about the lack of importance of a statement. This dispute has been solved, the statement being removed in the end. Also the criteria says positive actifity is not to be judged as instability. diego_pmc (talk)

Is the editor even still active? My concern was that the issues presented appeared to not have been fully addressed which could lead to further conflict at any point, hence it being unstable. Though, if it were to be reevaluated, I could see this part being changed to pass.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His last edit was on June 18^[1] so I guess he's pretty active. At least he was when I shortened the summaries. Anyway after they are re-re-shortened, I will ask for his opinion. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, someone could have given me a heads-up on my talk page. I felt that the above discussions were not being resolved with only two editors disagreeing, and I left this article for some time to clear my head; I just returned to it. My main objections, as I recall, were 1) Too much lengthy summary of the Amazon information (I still believe that a link would be simpler and not take up a disproportionate chunk of the article, although short summaries should be workable); and 2) Citation issues, including a lack of references for the stories' summaries. The GA review seems to have raised those issues again. I can certainly reserve my evaluation until the new summaries are ready, though. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All fair-use rationale appears to be in order on the images used.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   All in-body images are captioned.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I was originally tempted to do a quick fail due to the article's lack of stability (100+ edits in just the last couple weeks) and near-complete lack of citations in the second half, but I felt that it was moving in the right direction and needed a more thorough analysis. Good luck on the improvements