Talk:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I saw this article passed GA and was happy to see that since I am a big Harry Potter fan. But upon looking at the article, I saw that it was just not GA worthy and seemed to go through an easy review. My concerns:

The lead is very weak and short; it could definitely be expanded to the lengths of the first two novels leads. I have expanded the lead

You haven't really expanded it you just added that last paragraph which is just repeating information about the film that you've already stated in the first lead paragraph.

For a book that's a part of a very well-liked series by people of all ages, the critical reception section is lacking a bit. Most reviews are for the film. If you can find links, I will gladly add them into the article

Here's two:

[1] I had looked at this, but it seems to be a description of the series and the book rather than a review
[2] Is user contributed, and not a reliable source

The pre-release history should go under the publication and reception section as "development" Done
In the editions section, you say that the publisher released a new version and give the title of that version but you don't explain what was different about the edition for the last two editions in the second "paragraph". Done
There is one instance where you use mdy, but you use dmy for the rest of the article. Done
The sales section is two sentences. I feel like there is a lot more information out there about the sales of the book and since it was a big hit around the world there has got to be more to add there. There is not much specific information out there about sales, I added in what I could, and I can't see any more. However, if you know of any more, feel free to add it in

You have no number for sales in the infobox, but yet you say a total in the sales section Done

There is nothing in the notes section Removed
The video game section does not list the platforms and ratings for the game (like in the first two novel articles). Done
Almost all the refs could be improved in minor ways to make them more detailed. The refs are still acceptable how they are, though

Is Nerds in Babeland a RS? Removed

Outside of those, the plot seems fine and the film section as well.

Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 04:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to fix the issues in the next few days. Mat ty.007 10:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it went through a smooth GA was because it was fine. I read the article about three times and couldn't find anything majorly wrong other than the items pointed out in the review. All of the items you've pointed out are SOFIXIT issues and can be resolved with an edit or two each. I believe it would be best of you to actually fix the issues (though User:Matty007 has told me he's fixing them) instead of listing this for a Reassessment. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dusti, most of the issues addressed above are minor and you could have easily fixed them yourself. Besides, this article is GA, not FA. Good articles don't have to be perfect. ~Hue Sat Lum 15:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You've fixed the errors that I've outlined and were capable of fixing. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 16:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]