Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Peer review/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

Okay usual PR stuff, its a GA, so I'm aiming for FA at some point in the future (no matter how far it is). Any comments are welcomed: grammer, glaring errors, info that should be included, sourcing etc. Also if you do know of any good info that for some reason isn't included then that's great as well. Thanks. Gran² 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 19:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a complete newbie to peer review, so please take my comment with a grain of salt.
The plot section heavily covers the beginning of the movie, but the rest is summarised simply with Harry and his friends, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley, discover the plot and seek to prevent the theft of the stone, which is hidden in a protected chamber at Hogwarts. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot As this is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement, you should include plot twists and a description of the ending. This guideline also says the plot summary should have between 400 and 700 words. This one currently has 217 words. So just expand the summary of the stuff that happens later on in the film, especially the ending. Good work so far! Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into it, thanks. Gran² 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the bullet pionts in Cast section? Buc (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's what cast sections have in most cases... Gran² 11:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why don't all the roles have them? Buc (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because that's how some cast sections are. The first three cast members have a large paragraph of info, while the rest just have a sentence or so. As such they work better without bullet points. Gran² 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article really isn't bad :) But some suggestions I have include creating a new section entitled "Casting" under the Production section for all the prose that there currently is under the Cast section. A table or bulleted list can than be made for the actors and their roles. Next, I notice the article lacks a release section. What should be done is this: create a "Distribution" section and combine the marketing information with information on the film's release (i.e. rating, premieres, home video- that one's lacking right now- worldwide release dates, etc.). And finally, change "Reaction" to "Reception" or "Response" as "Reaction" more or less implies critical reaction and not necessarily commerical response, which that section also happens to cover. Otherwise, I think it's excellent! The no erz (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]