Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

In my initial read, I found some awkwardness and redundancy in the plot summary, which I fixed, and I also found some places without the ndash and the nb space thingies, which I added it. Overall, however, the article leaves a very good impression. It is thorough, nicely done, illustrated, and covers the topic.

who is Marietta Edgecombe?

In checking the citations section, I noticed there were several web links that do not have consistent title links. (footnotes 29 and 30) This should be done.

Another issue, before I do the formal assessment: is a reliable source? It looks to me like a fan site, which would probably not qualify as a reliable source. ummmm, so convince me, or cite the material from elsewhere...or....?

just a few thoughts....--Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a very nice article. I have some general and specific comments related to those above.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    it is nicely written, generally smooth, and the sections flow nicely. There are still some rough parts, and a few typos. I suggest that you or someone go through it again and make sure that you've found them all.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):'ve not seen an explanation of that. Consistent footnote formatting especially in the weblinks...?
    I've replaced the sources with reliable ones and fixed references 29 and 30. Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    here is where I have the most issues. While the article is nicely done, I'm wondering if the plot summary is too long. It feels too long and the article could not stand alone without the other articles, or at least not with a great degree of sense. (btw, it is a criticism I have of the other articles as well, so I'm not picking on you, just pointing this out.) It looks like you've included a lot of detail that may not be necessary for the general summary of the plot. After all, someone could actually read the book, right? So it would seem that there should be a sense of "the story so far" (one sentence summaries of each book), and then the summary of this book, perhaps 2-3 paragraphs, and then where this book fits into the sequence of a couple of story lines. Does this work?
    I'll work on it in my sandbox. I've already trimmed the plot summary down quite a bit, but if I follow your guidelines I may be able to do even more. Keep in mind, however, this is the longest book in the series, so it will be tough to cut it down :). Malinaccier (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    Done. Malinaccier (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    there is still a lot of editing going on, and some of it from anonymous iPs, and it looks like "tweaking" and various other editing helps, so not an edit war entirely, but also not clear from the edit summaries what has been done. I'd like to see someone take charge of the editing and finish it up before I make a decision.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    I'd like to see someone take charge of the editing and possibly someone else deal with the links and cites if necessary, finish it up before I make a decision.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm on vacation right now, so it might be a while until I can get to the article. Thanks, Malinaccier P. (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Nice job. Very nice trimming of the plot summary. Now it really is a summary.