Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Harry Potter influences and analogues/1

Harry Potter influences and analogues

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural endorse per lists are not eligible for GA. Geometry guy 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter influences and analogues was placed under GA review by User:H1nkles. I completed a re-edit in accordance with his recommendations, and left a note for him on his talk page. H1nkles promised to re-evaluate the article, but never did. User:David Fuchs, perhaps unaware of the discussion on H1nkles's talk page, assumed that no action had been taken and closed the GA as demote. I left a note on his talk page explaining the mix up but he never responded. Serendi ^pod ous 19:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's much to like about this article. I wish, however, that it was more of an article and less of a list. The short sub-sections make for choppy reading. Additionally, the prose need sharpening in places; sentences such as Order is roughly chronological. need honing. I haven't finished checking citations, but they are generally good; the only potential concern I've seen for the cites is one from about.com (For Where Your Treasure Is, There Your Heart Will Be Also": Bible Quotes or Harry Potter Quotes?"), which is a marginal source. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subbed the ref and changed the wording on the sentences you mentioned. As regards the format, I've always seen this as a list, not an article, because for it to be an article there would have to be some kind of overriding theme to these different texts, but there isn't one. It's just those random texts either that Rowling has admitted have influenced her, or that others have suggested may have done so and for which I can find adequate sources. There are at least 25 more on a subpage for which I have not found adequate sources. Serendi ^pod ous 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Since it's structured as a list and reads like a list, it might as well be deemed a list. Majoreditor (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]