Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.

The article was not promoted 02:05, 9 March 2008.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

[edit]
Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I can't think of any more ways to improve it, frankly. I've been working on it for over two years, since production began on the film, and have been following its development very closely. I believe it to be a well-written, interesting, comprehensive article that I think deserves to be a FA. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 03:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per bibliomaniac comments on the lead. Plus:
    • "Harry Potter and his cousin Dudley are mysteriously attacked by two Dementors" why mysteriously? and why does Harry get his full name but Dudley doesn't?
    • "Steve Kloves, the screenwriter of the first four Potter films, had other commitments, and Michael Goldenberg wrote the script for the film." needs ref
    • Not sure we need a Cast section when each character has there own article.
    • I don't think previsualisation is a word.
    • Music would be a better scetion title than score.
    • Not sure about the Differences from the book section. seems a bit trival.
    • Some refs dates in backets while most are not.
    • "* Malaysia, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Philippines, United States — 11 July Puerto Rico, Singapore, United Kingdom — 12 July Republic of Ireland, India — 13 July" this should be in the infobox.
    • "Currently, it is nominated for six awards at the 2008 Sony Ericsson Empire Awards, organised by Empire, for Best Film, Actor (Radcliffe), Actress (Watson), Director, Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy Film and Score." get rid of this and add it back in when the winners are anounced.
    • "Warner has noticed that the Blu-ray release has sold more. Warner decided to support Blu-ray because of the sales." needs ref.

Buc (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments. I've addressed each of your points in a respective bullet below:
      • I've just removed the offending adverb and added his last name.
      • There was a reference sitting on that for the longest time. I don't know what happened to it. I added it back.
      • The Cast section is very very brief, limited to just the main trio of kids and the five most important adults in the film. I would say that it is a good summary of the cast, with a link to the full cast at the List of Harry Potter cast members.
      • It's a link on Wikipedia. Perhaps it contains a hyphen (pre-visualization).
      • Music just didn't sound right to me. I understand how score could be ambiguous, so how about "soundtrack"?
      • I have included many references in the Differences section to prove that it is not trivial. Previously, we had a listing of every single difference, minute or great, until we decided that was too much. By incuding the references (which are links to articles that note differences, not just links to articles which establish that certain facts in the book or film are true), we have tried to show what is key about the changing from the source material to the screenplay.
      • Sorry, not sure what you're saying here. Are you referring to the difference between, say, refs 12 and 13 (one by "Haun, Harry" and the other a press release from WB)? That would be because the {{cite news}} template does not put dates in parentheses when {{cite press release}} or {{cite web}} (I think) do put dates in parentheses. It's part of the make-up of the citation.
      • Per WP:FilmRelease, we actually should not do that.
      • Okay, I've commented it out. I don't quite see why that's necessary, but if you think its timely nature detracts from the current state of the article I guess that's understandable.
      • Will search down for a ref for that last statement. Thanks.
      • Hopefully, with the changes I made and the comments I gave you'll consider supporting the article. Thanks! --Fbv65edel — t — c // 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Support since I helped with the GA nominations, and the article only needs to fix a few parts. igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Like Buc; there isn't the section objections, the prose isn't very good. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern. There isn't a section called "objection"? I'm confused. And when you say the prose "isn't very good," could you point out where specifically you think it is weak? I didn't think it was; then again, I wrote a lot of it. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, at least for now. I see there are some concerns and I would like to see them adressed first. Untill then I don't have any feelings towards either side. Regards, Daimanta (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • It was directed by David Yates, produced by David Heyman's company Heyday Films, and the screenplay was written by Michael Goldenberg. It is the fifth film in the Harry Potter film series. It follows - reptition of 'it', the last two sentences can be merged film series, and follow Harry...
  • The first two sentences of the plot summary in the lead are ok, the third however, doesn't really sumarize anything - She slowly becomes an authoritarian figure in the school,
  • Post-production on the film continued for several months afterwards - well months of post-production takes place on every film after filming, thus rendering this sentence pointless. Useful information on the production would be good such as budget as an example
  • It was the sixth-highest grossing film of all time, and a critical and commercial success - It is the sixth, how about the gross mention in the lead? or that huge $333 million gross in 5 days, some quotes from notable critics wouldn't hurt
  • he was approached because of one of his previous projects, the television drama Sex Traffic, and because the studio saw
  • and finished in the end of November 2006
  • The film's budget was reportedly between GB£75 and 100 million, can you expand on this? is it the biggest budget for a HP film?
  • Third paragraph of production is just a list of credits in a paragraph, Bob was the ..., bill was the ...
  • Stuart Craig returned as set designer, having also designed the first four films' sets
  • expensive set yet built for the Potter film series. - Until one is more expensive there is no need for yet
  • Why are there mentions of awards in the production section? That's what the awards section is for
  • One sentence paragraphs does not make great prose
  • Tim Burke was the visual effects supervisor, John Richardson was the special effects supervisor, and Nick Dudman was the creatures special effects supervisor. - Poorly written
  • While this is indeed a positive score
  • The New York Daily News gave the film four out of four stars, - No, Colin Bertram of The New York Daily News gave the film four stars, all the quotes in the review section need to be attributed to the person who said them
  • the third-biggest opening of all time, behind only Spider-Man 3 (2007) and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
  • white space between references and awards
  • Lots of italics missing from references such as Rolling Stone, New York Daily
  • HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX - capital references should be lowercase
  • No need to link Box Office Mojo three references in a row
  • Why the External link to the WB harry potter website when there is one for the film?
  • Why the DVD talk EL? Shouldn't the section on the DVD cover the features?
  • What relevance is the last link? There are probably 40+ interviews
  • Is The Leaky Cauldron, a fansite, reliable? M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Me and Fbv fixed most, except for the "list of credits" and the lack of production (will look for articles to improve those parts). As for Leaky Cauldron, maybe it's reliable. igordebraga ≠ 17:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would without a doubt trust the Leaky Cauldron. They are in direct communication with Warner Bros. Rowling has publicly declared it her favorite fan site and has recognized its integrity with her prestigious Fan Site Award. I could offer a few more references besides the one Igor gave, but I would definitely trust Leaky. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 22:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose: The external links and references need looking at ASAP. I just found four dead links, and three that timed out on me. There was also one flagged up as a "expiring news links."--Slicedpineapple (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Poorly written throughout. Needs massaging throughout. Here are random samples from the top. (Also assumes too much specialist knowledge of the reader.)

  • Opening sentence: why not splash bright blue on just "novel" in your piped link, rather than on five words? Same for "series", perhaps. It's very linky at the top, and thus messy and hard to read. I see other large phrases piped entirely: same issue. For heaven's sake, delink the dictionary word "bureaucrat". Hello? Remove the link to US$ and GB pounds (see MOS on this), those obscure currencies. There are tons of them to weed out.
  • Remove "the" before "second".
  • Remove "on the film" as quite unnecessary (wrong preposition, too).
  • Perplexed as to why we need little flags and country names in the infobox, especially when it leads to US colon ... nothing. Why oh why? Do we respond with nationalistic arousal? Should we? Are we incapable of understanding the names of the countries? The currencies are linked again in the infobox (US$ twice again ...).
  • "Dementors"—readers shouldn't have to interrupt their reading and hit the link to learn what they are. Needs an epithet or two, such as "evil beasts, Dementors", ... Don't assume the reader knows anything about the Potter phenomenon; this means explaining things a little at the opening of the plot (about five terms). What is "O.W.L."? Tony (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harry_Potter_and_the_Order_of_the_Phoenix_(film)/archive1&oldid=1078800649"