Talk:Hogwarts/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

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

Some first comments:

  • Prose Style could be improved
  • Wiki links could be added (i.e. to many of the school heads, the house titles)
  • Some externally links are unreliable or broken
  • Though fictional, I believe the page would benefit from a style ressembling a real school's wiki page (I believe a history section would be interesting, and I believe the subjects could be made into their own wiki page. The Hogwarts express section should be made a subsection of arrival. The Secrets of Hogwarts section could be made part of a larger "Grounds" section and include things like Hagrid's hut. Perhaps a section about books referencing Hogwarts (within the Harry Potter Universe) could also be added.
  • A fair use rationale must be added to the Chamber of Secrets picture, or a different picture must be selected.
  • If you are stuck trying to rearrange things, you can look at both major university pages (i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard), and the Harry Potter wiki for ideas.

I will do my best to address some of these issues where I can, but as my time is limited, I encourage the nominator and collaborative editors to address the above points. Reviewer: Thedropsoffire (talk · contribs) 08:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just popping by to note that WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction may be helpful during the course of this review. I had been considering reviewing this article when Thedropsoffire picked it up, and in doing an initial check of the article I noticed that a pretty significant chunk is written from an in-universe perspective. Also, there are quite a lot of places missing referencing, especially when referring to opinion, statistics or potential controversial statements. Thedropsoffire, it might be helpful to the nominator for you to list which links you consider unreliable (and I'm assuming you mean references, as external links are not required to conform to the same reliability guidelines as references). Dana boomer (talk) 15:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dana, yes I was referring to the references. Specifically, there are several dead links within the references, including many Accioquote references, and many J.K. Rowling official website references for which I presume the links have changed. Here are the references at issue (listed by their reference number at the time of this comment):
*Reference 3 - 1999 Accio Quote - dead link
*Reference 4 - 2001 Accio Quote - dead link
*Reference 8 - Online chat transcript - dead link
*Reference 11- How do you remember...- dead link
*Reference 12- About the books- dead link
*Reference 13- The Leaky Cauldron and Muggle...- dead link
*Reference 15- J.K. Rowling official site F.A.Q.- dead link
*Reference 16- J.K. Rowling official site extras- dead link
*Reference 18- We haven't heard- dead link
*Reference 21- This is reference to a specific piece of information about the Hufflepuff common room, the reference link takes you only to the Pottermore homepage
*Reference 24- same as reference 21, but on the topic of Alchemy (and why is alchemy capitalized??)
*Reference 31- Can prefects...(official site)- dead link
*Reference 35-2001:Accio Quote - dead link

thedropsoffire|talk

  • Additionally, there is rather heavy reliance on Accioquote - not sure whether this is an issue for a GA.
Upon taking a further look at AccioQuote, I would say that it is a reference to be used with care, because in some cases, we are linking to copyright violations, which is a bad thing. For example, the copyright to this Telegraph article is, I'm certain, not owned by AccioQuote. It would really be better (and much more legal) to instead link to the Telegraph article itself, or format the reference as a paper reference, once we've verified the dates/title/etc are correct. If all of the AccioQuote references to newspapers were changed to straight newspaper references, the existing references would be in much better shape already (although, the issue of missing references is also a significant one). Anyway, I'm not trying to take over your review, but if you don't mind I'll hang around and maybe pop in a comment now and then. Dana boomer (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out Dana; this will have to be fixed before I approve this do GA. And do stick around by all means - thedropsoffire|talk
Hey, The problem with 21 is that you have to have an account on Pottermore I think. Anyway I'm deleting the dead links and will try to add new ones. Thanks! §h₳un 9∞76 15:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


  • Not done  Shaun9876 is doing... Prose Style could be improved
  •  Done Wiki links could be added (i.e. to many of the school heads, the house titles)
  •  Done Some externally links are unreliable or broken
  • yellow tickY Half done Though fictional, I believe the page would benefit from a style ressembling a real school's wiki page (I believe a history section would be interesting, and I believe the subjects could be made into their own wiki page. The Hogwarts express section should be made a subsection of arrival. The Secrets of Hogwarts section could be made part of a larger "Grounds" section and include things like Hagrid's hut. Perhaps a section about books referencing Hogwarts (within the Harry Potter Universe) could also be added.
  •  Done (It has one)A fair use rationale must be added to the Chamber of Secrets picture, or a different picture must be selected.
  •  Done If you are stuck trying to rearrange things, you can look at both major university pages (i.e. Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard), and the Harry Potterwiki for ideas.

§h₳un 9∞76 17:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


I need some help deleting dead links as I can't seem to do it without crashing the Reftag template. Thanks! §h₳un 9∞76 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You should not just delete dead links - they either need to be fixed, archived or replaced with entirely new references. If the reference was a journal or book and the url was just a courtesy link, it can be removed, but only after a thorough check to make sure it hasn't just had its location changed. Just removing dead refs is a very bad practice, because then other editors don't know that the information was originally sourced, and they don't have a place to start looking for a ref (as they do if there is a reference with a dead link). Dana boomer (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't heard of archiving References/Dead links. Could someone tell me how or direct me to somewhere where I could learn how? §h₳un 9∞76 00:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this earlier. There are a couple of archiving services out there. You can use the Toolserver Checklinks tool, which gives you all sorts of neat options, and will help you figure out if there are archives of the dead links out there. Also, sometimes, links are just moved to different spots within the same webpage, so that's a good thing to check, too. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


Sorry Dana, is there a way to give me a link not to the secure server? My computer says can't connect whenever I try to load a page. §h₳un 9∞76 01:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That link shouldn't be to the secure server, just to the main toolserver. Here's a link directly to the results for Hogwarts (instead of to the main page): Hogwarts results. Can you access that? Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


I get an error message, Safari can't open the page because it can't establish a connection to "Toolserver" §haun 9∞76 23:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


I tried again and it works now... It didn't before. §haun 9∞76 23:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)



Prose[edit]

Ok, the other areas have been improved, where could I start with prose improvement? Dana/Dropsoffire, any Idea where I could begin? §haun 9∞76 01:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll want to poke Dana and have her look through the prose to make any fixes; Thedrops hasn't edited since the 6th so waiting for him may not be the best idea. Wizardman 03:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There are still a bunch of dead links and links that go to copyright violations, and the article is significantly underreferenced. Honestly, if I were picking this up for GA review at this point, I would fail it based on these issues alone. There is also repetitive prose (bits of trivia mentioned two or three times), unnecessary lists, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Now that I've actually read through the article, I agree entirely, didn't notice how much needed to be fixed. As such am failing it for now. Wizardman 01:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)