Talk:Wizarding World/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 05:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Brojam: I'll take over this one. Looks good at first glance but I should be finished for a few days.

1. Well written
   • Prose: Y
   • Style
     • Overall: Y
     • Lead section: Y
     • Article layout: Y
     • Words to watch: Y
     • Writing about fiction: Y
     • List incoperation: Y
2. Verifiable
   • Citations: Y
   • Reliable sources: Y
   • No Original Research: Y
   • Copyright Violations: Y
   • Plagiarism: Y
3. Broad in coverage
   • All major aspects: Y
   • No unnecessary detail: Y
4. Neutral point of view
   • Overall: Y
   • Due weight given to topics: Y
5. Stable: Y
6. Images
   • Well illustrated (if possible): Y
   • Images tagged with copyright info: Y
   • Fair use rationale given for non-free content: Unchecked
   • Images are relevant: Y
7. Pass/Fail: To be determined...

General comments

• The Earwig tool detects a 75.7% confidence from a webzine, quite serious issue.

That website copied the text from this article and Harry Potter (film series). It has Wikipedia as a source at the bottom. You can also still see the reference numbers from Wikipedia that they forgot to remove in the 'Future and Spin-off movies' part. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why the first paragraphs in the Harry Potter films 1-4 are unsourced whilst 5-7 are?

The first paragraphs are premises/plots, so per WP:FILMPLOT a source is not required. When I was able to find a good source with the premise of the film, I included it, but I couldn't find any for the first four Harry Potter films. I could put reviews of the films that included plot summaries. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Could you explain how those Harry Potter fansites are reliable? DailyMail, which is cited ref. 36, is no longer vetted as a reliable source per Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources

Changed ref. 36. The Leaky Cauldron has been used on multiple other Harry Potter GAs. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think 'Future' is a bad section header. Can you come up with an alternative?

What about 'Other sequels' or 'Undated sequels'? - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are no more problems with the article so I'm happy to say that I am now passing this GAN. It's a very nice, broad article that provides an overview of the Harry Potter franchise, which is helpful to those (myself included) who are overwhelmed visiting the HP-related articles individually. You might be interested in nominating it for WP:DYK as its a newly-promoted GA. Slightlymad 05:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! - Brojam (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)