Wikipedia:Featured article review/Religious debates over the Harry Potter series/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [1].

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

Notified: Serendipodous, Elizium, Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, WP Novels, WP Religion, WP Christianity, WP Children's literature, WP Women writers, talk page notification 2022-01-08

Review section

This 2007 promotion has not been maintained to standards. As explained on talk, it has not been kept up to date, suffers from WP:PROSELINE, does not use the most recent scholarly sources (of which there are many), and relies too heavily on overquoting. There are probably due weight problems as well, related to the use of lower quality sources. Following on the FAR for J. K. Rowling, the highest quality sources that should be used are known, but there has been no response to the talk page post for six months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. Fixing this would be a massive undertaking. At present, the article is a chronological hodgepodge of individual reactions to Harry Potter from a religious perspective. It mainly reports on reactions that are primary sources for purposes of this article—because they are evidence of the debates from participants in the debates, rather than commentary on the debates. It would need to be totally rewritten to give WP:DUE weight to the main religious reactions, and themes of such, identified as significant in reliable secondary sources. As SG notes, good sources are available for this. But it would be a mammoth task (which I am not prepared to take on) to use them for this purpose. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC on grounds mentioned above. Much of the article strikes me as primary sourcing that tries to make the issue seem salient to present. Some other minor issues stemming from the age of the article should also be considered, including MOS and linking issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. In addition to the above issues, there is some unsourced phrasing. The lead says "often on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state[7][8][9]", but all the citations here (and in the body) are to the same lawsuit. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't the time for a thorough assessment, but I recall from when I examined this during the Rowling FAR that there's much scholarship that isn't covered, and covering it will be a considerable amount of work. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Other than a lot of work to remove the WP:ELNEVER accio-quote sourcing, the article has not changed since Vanamonde93 last looked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, after the intense work at JKR, it's abundantly clear that the work needed here would be huge, and equally clear that there is no one likely to do that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, some junk has been removed but this is still a trainwreck. Hog Farm _Talk 13:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC so significant edits to the article since FAR nom, and the person who has edited the article suggests moving to FARC above. There's just too much work to do in order to save this, and FAR is the wrong avenue for that. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, major issues, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, is a trainwreck in many ways. Hog Farm _Talk 01:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Lots of work is needed, but no one has really stepped forward. Z1720 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.