Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Goodsmudge (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to review this in a while, but glancing over the article it appears to be detailed, informative and neutral. Feel free to disagree with me if I make points that you don't think would beenfit the article. --Goodsmudge (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review

In progress:

Lead

Compiles with Wikipedia: Manual of Style (lead section)
Gives overview of plot, production and reception.

The first paragraph is slightly disorderly, containing elements of both production and plot. I would suggest that these be divided into smaller paragraphs.

N Not done and not likely to be done The lead is meant to summarise the article and not be split up into paragraphs for everything. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "It is the seventh instalment in the Harry Potter film series, written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman, David Barron and Rowling." seems awkward and leaves it up to interpratation whether the series as a whole was written by Kloves and produced by Heyman, Barron and Rowling or just this film in paticular. I suggest putting the information on the writer and producers in the first sentence after "directed by David Yates".

Done, in some way. I wouldn't say at all that it implies that. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the precise dates of filming should be include in the lead. Perhaps replace it with "Principal photography was conducted through February 2009 to June 2010" or delete that sentence altogether.

Not done, I would consider the current to be more readable. (note: en-gb.) Thine Antique Pen (talk)

Plot

Follows the manual of style.
Links are provided for all major characters and concepts. I don't think it's a problem now, but be wary of overlinking.
No obvious grammar errors.

This section has flaws in its writing, such as having sentences which do nit connect with the rest of the paragraph and do not flow with the narrative. I suggest that major rewrites are needed for the plot summary to meet the standards of a good article.

Not done The plot section of articles should be between 400 and 700 words. Having the extra "bloat" (as it has been called), would bring it over this number. The plot is informative and is in the correct order, which is what matters in the plot section of an article on a feature film. See WP:FILMPLOT. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "Voldemort commandeers Lucius Malfoy's wand, as Voldemort's own wand cannot be used to kill Harry, their wands being "twins"." is clunky because the repetitive use of "wand" disrupts the flow. Consider replacing the second or / and third "wand" with a pronoun.

Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After mentioning Kreacher, the article links to Elf instead of Magical creatures in Harry Potter#Prominent creatures#House-elf.

Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The summary needs to be concise, per Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. I reccomend that sentences such as "They disrupt the wedding of Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour." be cut.

Not done That sentence you have mentioned plays a key part in the story and is one of the major ones. Yes, the summary needs to be concise, but also needs to be short. (See WP:FILMPLOT.) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Follows the manual of style.
Detailed, informative and concise.
Easy to read.

Consider that charcters such as Molly Weasly that do not have a significant role in this film possibly should not be included.

Not done Molly Weasley is one of the major characters in the film, along with many other of the Weasley family. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

Well laid out and easy to read.
Good selection of sourced quotes.
Material very well sourced, with many ciatations.
Follows the manual of style.
Links to various articles of interest.

Under sets, I feel that it should be divided into three paragraphs that discuss location filming, the wedding tent and Malfoy Manor.

Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, consider expanding the music subsection.

Not done I'd rather not. The article on it is already linked. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

Again, very well sourced.
Very detailed.
Split up into paragraphs.

The marketing section may require a clean-up or a better way of presentation, as it can look like an eyesore. Possibly present it as a timeline, table or just clear up the prose.

Done (minor) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary of said marketing section becoming trivia-like.
Under release, consider trimming "On 26 August 2010, director David Yates, producers David Heyman and David Barron along with Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn" to "On 26 August 2010, director David Yates, producers David Heyman and David Barron and Warner Bros. president Alan F. Horn, attended" or something resembling the latter to keep it concise.

Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk)

Reception

The critical response is detailed and neutral.
Good use of quotes in the critical reception subsection.
The accolades section is very well presented and sourced.

An obvious mistake in the fourth paragraph under box office, where there is a </ref> visible in the text.

Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsmudge (talk • contribs) 12:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this might be OK to be passed now. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer:--Goodsmudge (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General

I won't go over every previous point again, but the whole article adheres to Wikipedia:Manual of style and provides a decent level of information in a well-presented and readable format. It's clear, detailed and a has a good general standard of quality.

Lead

There's still a decent level of information in the lead and it presents an overview of all aspects of the article. Aside from matters of writing style / preference (i.e. specific filming dates), I can see no faults in it.

Plot

The plot provides links to other articles, has a decent level of information and follows the guidelines set by WP:FILMPLOT. The mistakes I foundnahve been cleared up, making it readable and informative.

However, I still think that the sentence about Bill and Fleur's wedding should be cut or expanded into a larger summarisation of the event, regardless of the "bloat" you mentioned. As a Harry Potter fan myself, I know that it is a large part of the film / book, but as per Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary ("The basic structure of many narrative plots includes a lengthy middle section during which characters repeatedly get in and out of trouble on their way to the climactic encounter. Although such events are exciting to watch, cutting less important ones can make the plot summary tighter and easier to understand. "), it really should be removed unless you can expand it into something that makes it appear as a more crucial part of the film that it currently does.

Cast

See my notes from yesterday. I disagree that Molly is a major character in this specific film, except during the early Burrow & wedding scenes, but that does not damage the quality of this article. Anyway, a short, concise, well-presented and useful section.

Production

Again, see my earlier notes; it's detailed, well-presented and has a fantastic selection of quotes. The section uses a captioned image well to aid the text, not disrupt it, and it's very well sourced. It's divided into sub-sections which help male it easier to read and skim. A very good piece of writing, except I still find the music section very short and wonder if a better picture would be avaliable.

Distribution

This section is remarkably well-sourced and, as above, is divided into subsections. I would still be wary of "Marketing" becoming trivia, due to it's nature of being collected facts, but presently this is still not an issue. The paragraphs and various subsections help divide up "Distribution", presenting it better than previously.

Reaction

The only problem with this section previously was a minor markup mistake. That's been fixed and the whole section is very good, neutral and well-presented (I really like the awards box thing).

Pass

Congratulations to Thine Antique Pen and the Harry Potter / Wikipedian community who have written this article! Aside from a couple minor niggles, my only real complaint is that I still consider the Plot section not to be written to the standard of the rest of the article. I've passed the article, however and consider it very worthy of being a good article.

Well done and congratulations! --Goodsmudge (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]