Contributor(s): Malinaccier, Matty.007 et al. (note that they have not explicitly endorsed the nomination)

I myself have not contributed to the GA process of any of these articles, but I noticed recently that they have all been GAs since 2013. I assume that there has been no good topic nomination before now because the articles were worked on and nominated by several different people, and some of the articles have quite lengthy article histories (in terms of several GANs, PRs, failed FACs etc.). I tried to research some of the users responsible for the articles' GA statuses, but could find none that were active; instead, I left talk page messages on Talk:Harry Potter and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force, but have received no responses in a week. Per WP:SILENCE, I believe this meets the good practice rule of consulting existing editors before making a nomination. --Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, please go ahead and work on this. I have no objections other than some of the plot summaries (Deathly Hallows for instance) need to be shortened and purged of fancruft. Best of luck! Malinaccier (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Support, although I would rather have an article like 'List of Harry Potter Novels' or similar be the lead article. Kees08 (Talk) 07:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand why, but List of Harry Potter books redirects to Harry Potter, which states in its hatnote "This article is about the series of novels". The article does discuss the movie series and other aspects of the franchise but that is relevant to the context of how the novels were received and what they inspired/lead to. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 17:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that makes sense. Kees08 (Talk) 17:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing work. Doing better than the movies, that are just halfway Good. igordebraga 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]