A recent peer review of the article yielded no creative feedback (which could be due to the backlog, but I'm taking to mean as little more to say about the article). I think that all the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed. The article is comprehensive as to how people take Harry Potter into their hands, with little to minimal mention of the popularity of the series or how the series has been critically assessed. Images are all free, and the article is well-cited. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Needs a copyedit. I found at least 2 odd constructions. "written by fans online", people usually write offline and use the net just for distribution. "tours of iconic landmarks relevant in the books"; landmarks are relevant to the books. "Pottermania is an informal term dating to about 1999"; "Pottermania is an informal term first used..." or "Pottermania is an informal term dating back to about...". "The fandom is facilitated by many different forms of media"; the fandom shares their ... through many different forms of media. Why aren't Draco and the Malfoys or any of the other wizard rock bands mentioned? I think JKR sharing plot info with a dying girl should also be mentioned? The excessive lines with film auditions? Also, what is an article about HP fandom without a mention of "towel girl"? There's quite some things missing. - Mgm|(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Doing... Finished all the wording issues. The issues with content I will cover by tomorrow. Never even considered the "towel girl" -- where would you consider incorporating that into the article? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten to cover this yet -- I encountered quite a bit of unexpected work this week. I suppose with the comment below I'll work on this after the nomination fails and the article undergoes copyediting. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I concur this article needs a serious copyedit. It seems relatively comprehensive to me, but there are a great number of odd sentence constructions. There are too many for me to list here, but I've included a few of the larger ones, and I recommend that you talk to the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors about helping. Karanacs 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Awkward sentence: "Pottermania is an informal term first used in about 1999 describing the craze Harry Potter fans have had over the series"
This sentence needs to be reworked: "There are many fan web sites about Harry Potter on the Internet" (where else would web sites be?)
Sentence on Godric's Hollow website needs work; "strangely?"
The paragraph about Warner Bros trying to shut down the sites does not flow well
The paragraph describing fan web sites in general should probably be at the top of that section instead of the bottom
The Podcasts section probably need to be reworked; I would first describe the podcasts and then talk about their award nominations
There should be no external links in the body of the article; these go in the external links section
awkward: "new posts of which are subscribed to by over 5000 people"
Need a citation after Emerson's quote about delusional
In your citations, don't put (English) - that is the default
Thanks for your comments -- looks like that's a major concern, so when the nom fails I'll work with the League of Copyeditors to improve the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.