Jump to content

Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC) I'll pick this one up and review over the next day or so: comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Cast: "Robbie Coltrane as... and a former staff at Hogwarts." Should be "former member of staff", or "former staff member"
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Music: "if it fit his schedule" is wrong and needs tweaking
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Marketing: Comma not needed after the dates in the first two sentences, (although there should be one between "released" and "revealing" in the first. I actually question the need for the para: have a look at WP:FILMMARKETING and decide on whether the section passes that rather low hurdle.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: Again comma not needed after the date (it's an American thing which we don't do in Britain, and this article is in BrEng, so it should comply really).
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: Are the list of countries needed? It seems to fail the release clause in MOS:FILM. The info for Jordan is out of date (and really isn't needed at all)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: "Theater", "Theaters" (and even theatre(s)) should be replaced throughout the article by cinema, as per WP:ENGVAR
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: "On 16 June 2011," again, the comma is not needed.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Home media: Again most commas after dates are not needed
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Home media: "By 18 July, 2012, " apart from the comma, the date is in an inconsistent format with the others
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical reception: As we're doing the review, we may as well update the RT date and number of critics. I'd avoid calling the quote a consensus: it's something written by RT and not a consensus per se
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical reception: A couple of commas after dates that are not needed again
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Critical reception: As per WP:ELLIPSES, you'll need to add   to ensure it doesn't break at the edge of some screens.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Box office: Seems very US-centric for a film made by a British production company with British actors and based on British book. I appreciate that it's an Anglo-US film, but this section seems as if this is primarily about the US, with passing reference to others, especially as the film had its world premiere in the UK and should therefore be dealt with first.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Box office: We use "the film" a lot here. Perhaps opening the paragraph with the film's name would soften that
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Box office: "the highest-grossing children's book adaptation in North America, outside North America and worldwide" I'm not sure what this means - perhaps it could be tweaked slightly
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Box office: Inconsistent date format: July 31, 2011
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    North America: "the highest-grossing XXX film". Why are some of the XXX parts italicised and some not? If there isn't a reson, then they should be consistent
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    North America: Another couple of WP:ENGVAR points here: 1) British English uses per cent, not the American percent; 2) "Friday-through-Thursday" should be "Friday to Thursday"
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    North America: "all three records first surpassed by Marvel's The Avengers". Do you mean "subsequently surpassed"? If not, then perhaps tweak for clarity
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside North America: 1) Same italics issue in the "the highest-grossing XXX film" format; 2) same per cent / percent issue
     Done percent, don't see any issue in the format here. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside North America: "On its opening day (13 July 2011)"? You should stress that this was not the opening day everywhere
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside North America: "This is about the same as what On Stranger Tides made". This sentence needs re-working
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    North America and Outside North America: With a profusion of records and amounts, these sections are both quite difficult to read in prose. It may be a better idea to list the records in table form and have an introductory paragraph to support the overall situation (much like you have done for the Accolades section).
    I'm unsure. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Accolades: Some US spellings in here that should be changed as per WP:ENGVAR ("Favorite" is the one that stands out the most)
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    Infobox: shows 13 July 2011 as the international release date, but the film had its world premiere in the UK and a US premiere before then, so it would be more in keeping with WP:FILMRELEASE to show just the 7 July for the UK and 11 July for the US and nothing after that date.
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A. References to sources:
    fns 2, 27, 45, 82 and 122 are all dead
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fns" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry - my fault, I should have been clearer on the first one. FN is footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can access all of them here - [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd - they all came up as problematic on the check link device, and when I clicked through them. If they're working then that's great. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    fn 9, 36, 46, 55 and 61 are redirects to pages without mention of the film
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fn" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    46 mentions the Jordanian customs and the one next to it mentions the film. All of the others I have no issue viewing.
    fns 7, 53, 69, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 108, 111, 112, 114, 116, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123 and 126 all have inconsistent date formats to the rest
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fns" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (fn 100 also has Italics running through wrong sections)
    I'm unsure what you mean by "fn" Thine Antique Pen (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're dealing with links: External Links: Official website link is a revert, so may as well tidy to the correct version and remove the Tide Art link - it adds little and fails WP:LINKVIO
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Casting: The first para relies on one source only, which refers only to Jamie Waylett. The replacing of the other actors from previous films needs to carry a cite
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't done yet, I'm afraid. There are five raw links now at footnotes 18—22 and these need to be sorted out. Additionally, footnote 21 is IMDB, notes 19 and 22 are from fansites and so are also unreliable. - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: "The film had its world premiere on 7 July 2011 in Trafalgar Square in London". No cite to cover date or location (esp important as London premieres are normally in Leicester Sq: Trafalgar Sq has no cinemas)
     Done TFunk (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Production: The opening sentence is unsupported
     Done TFunk (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sets: The info is all based on one source (fn 21 - Architectural Digest). However, the info comes from a number of different slides, all of whihc have different links. I think it would be better to link the info to the specific slide, rather than make the users hunt for it
    I am currently unable to access the page. If you could help with this one, I would be very thankful. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Visual effects: The opening sentence is unsupported by the only cite in the para (which refers to Double Negative but not any of the other companies)
     Done - removed. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Music: "However, Williams' score from the end..." needs a source (the dash in the film title needs sorting too)
     Done TFunk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: Release on 12 July into a number of countries isn't cited, although as per the above section, I would not shed tears if the list of locations disappeared
     Done – I just went ahead and removed this material. TFunk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Release: "On 16 June 2011, Part 2 received a 12A certificate" - unsupported
     Not done Supported by the source, "Classified date(s) 16/06/2011" - click "Full information". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you source the sentence then? Having the info there unsupported will raise a question with some. I know the link is already in the article, but it's supporting the run time and not the classification. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Accolades: The list of accolades has a number of entries in there that are unsupported
    Reliability: fn20: "The Leaky Cauldron" and fn 26: "MuggleNet". What makes these WP:RELIABLESOURCES?
    I question these Potter fan sites as well. While "The Leaky Cauldron" source (now fn29) derives its information from a Total Film Magazine article, the "MuggleNet" source (now fn35) does not have any support.
     Done; removed the bit that MuggleNet supports. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Link format: I like links in the footnotes and believe WP:OVERLINKING should be focussed on prose only, so I'm glad to see refs are linked. However there needs to be consistency: 70-73 (and 78) do not wikilink Box Office Mojo but 74-77 do. I'd suggest the easier route of ensuring everything that can be linked is linked. (There are others too, such as 86).
     Done TFunk (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Descriptions: Keep consistent with descriptions too: Box Office Mojo is correct, but Boxofficemojo.com in fn95 sticks out. (The same is true of MTV and mtv.com (fn126))
     Done TFunk (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Mostly niggles, mostly around consistency and without any majorly substantive work needed, although you may need to rework the Box office section to ensure it is not so over US-centric. Drop me a note when you're done or if you've got any questions or issues about what I've done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite a lot has been addressed now and I think that this is good to pass, or is almost good enough to pass. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Good work so far and it's nearly there. However, I'm afraid that some of the original issues are still there, and some new ones have been introduced, largely around the referencing:
Format:
  • Fn18, 19, 20, 55, 89, 90, 92-94, 99 and 101 are all inconsistent, in the short date format, rather than the long format
Dead links: see the toolserver report
  • fn 6 (businesswire.com)
  • fn 53 (moeys.net)
  • fn111 (Calgary Herald)
Links with issues:
  • Fn 20 is from the unreliable IMdB
  • fn33 (Warner Bros) Takes me to a home page and note in the ref—(NOTE: Click "Filmmakers", then "Alexandre Desplat")—means little as I can't see the link for filmmakers
  • fn11 (Rotten Tomatoes) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn43 (Yahoo! Movies) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn54 (AZCentral.com) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn64 (BFCA) No mention of Potter on the page
  • fn70 (ABC News) No mention of Potter on the page
This should be the final batch if they can be sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All good now: excellent work on a lot of fiddly little fixes and certainly at GA standard. Well done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_–_Part_2/GA1&oldid=527176937"