Talk:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dusti (talk · contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks absolutely great! I see a couple of concerns, which I'll put below:

There are some claims made that need to be sourced:

The book won the 1999 Whitbread Children's Book Award, the Bram Stoker Award, the 2000 Locus Award for Best Fantasy Novel, and was short-listed for other awards, including the Hugo.
The book sold 64,000 copies in three days.
The book was published on 8 July 1999 in the United Kingdom, by Bloomsbury,

Note This is sourced, but incorrectly. The link for the source simply lists the publisher and volume sold, but not the date. As the key concept of this text is when and where it was published, if you're going to source that - the source needs to state that.

Under Critical Reception you mention a negative review from Anthony Holden. For uniformity, I'd include a quote from him on his negative reception of the book, instead of a summary - as all of the other reviewers have a quote. I wouldn't fail the article for it, but I believe it would benefit the article.

This is the major stuff I am seeing for now. I'll add more (if any) as time goes on. The key point is that each claim (whether it be an award, etc) will need to be sourced. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dusti, thanks for taking the time to review my nomination.

I couldn't establish what was wrong with the awards pages, as they all listed Prisoner of Azkaban
Number of copies sourced
Publication dates, and by whom, sourced
Quote from review included

Hope this is OK now. Thanks, Mat ty.007 10:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job guys! I've

passed the article.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 25, 2013, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✓ Pass

2. Factually accurate?: ✓ Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: ✓ Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: ✓ Pass

5. Article stability? ✓ Pass

6. Images?: ✓ Pass

Excellent work! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— 01:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Dusti^{*Let's talk!*}