Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 28 January 2008

• Convert all (web) references to use the {{cite web}} template
• Edit the lead to conform the Misplaced Pages:Lead section guidelines
• Copyedit - remove redundancies, make text crisp and concise, specify when talking about size and avoid misplaced formality
• See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a

WP:GA to do

Lead:

• The lead is not a standalone summary of the article; whole sections of the article are not alluded to while too much detail regarding publishing is given. See WP:LEAD (please read carefully).
• Wasn't Voldemort trying to take over the entire world the first time around, not just the wizarding world? (Also, the phrase "take over the world" should probably be improved - it sounds cliched (think Pinky and the Brain).

Overview (kudos on the short plot summary!):

• The beginning of the "Plot summary" is a bit odd - we begin with celebration followed by the murder to two people. The tone doesn't strike me as quite right there.
• The plot summary should probably indicate that there is a similar structure to each book (begin at Dursley's, escape from Dursley's, year at Hogwars, defeat of evil, return to Dursley's). (This can be taken from the "Structure" section).
• The ending of the last novel should be included if this an encyclopedia page (enormous debate ensues).

Series:

• Make clear to the reader that the dates listed next to the books are release dates. Also, you mention later in the article that the first book was released at different times in the US and Britain - that kind of detail should be reflected here.
• The second agent she tried, Christopher Little, offered to represent her and sent the manuscript to Bloomsbury. After eight other publishers had rejected Philosopher's Stone, Bloomsbury offered Rowling a £3,000 advance for its publication. - Make the distinction between agents and publishers even clearer. You might even consider explaining what each does.
• Instead of a "Completion of the series" section, I would suggest a "Writing" section - the page needs to briefly describe the writing of all of the books, not just the last one.
• The "After Deathly Hallows" section is repetitive - cut it down.

Literary analysis:

• Much of the "Criticism" section should be thoroughly integrated into this section. I'm not sure that it is necessary to tell the history of HP's reception amongst literary critics quite yet (not enough time has passed). I would, instead, rely on their works to explain the themes and allusions of the novel more clearly. Much of this is original research.
• each book is constructed in the manner of a Sherlock Holmes-style mystery adventure - They are? Do you have a source for this?
• Why third-person limited and not third-person omniscient?
• The second paragraph of "Structure and genre" would fit better under plot summary.
• The article needs more information on the topic of "genre".
• "Themes" should come before "Motifs" since they are more important. I would also not call "blood purity" a motif - more of a theme, don't you think? (Example of why we need sources here.)
• The "Themes" and "Motifs" sections need sources! Literary scholarship and reviews will be the best place to find this. (Why, for example, these four motifs and not others?)
• The "Themes" section is tiny! Themes are the essence of a piece of prose fiction. This needs to be greatly expanded. (Do not rely exclusively Rowling's statements about the themes (see intentional fallacy) - use reviews and scholarship.) See, for example, this google scholar search for "Harry Potter". You can begin with what you find in these pages. Those texts should lead you to others. Much has been written by scholars in peer-reviewed books and articles, the ideal sources for wikipedia pages (WP:RS).
• They appear at the start of the first novel, presaging what is to come - what do they presage? This is an interpretation and needs a source.

Achievements (think about renaming "Reception and cultural impact"):

• In 2005, doctors at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford reported that their research of the weekends of Saturday 21 June 2003 and Saturday 16 July 2005 (the dates of the two most recent book releases of the series) found that only 36 children needed emergency medical assistance for injuries sustained in accidents, as opposed to other weekends' average of 67. - This is trivia.
• There is an accredited course at California State University, Bakersfield devoted to the literature of Harry Potter titled "The World of Harry Potter." - Why are you focusing on this one? There are other such courses.

Criticism, etc.

• Literary scholars should be separated from reviewers here - they perform a very different function. Also, the section reads like a list of who said what. We need a better overview - are literary scholars generally negative and reviewers generally positive (I don't think that is true, but you get my drift)?
• There has been so much good feminist scholarship on Harry Potter - don't quote from a salon article when you don't need to! Find the real stuff.
• The "conservative vs. liberal values" section is simplistic and ill-conceived.
• "Political commentary" obviously belongs in the "Themes" section.

Prose:

• The article needs a thorough copy edit. The biggest problems are awkward syntax and wordy sentences.
• Rowling's publishers were able to capitalise on this buzz by the rapid - what buzz? The "this" does not refer back to any buzz I can see.
• Since the publishing of Philosopher's Stone a number of societal trends have been attributed to the series. - hint at what they are in this topic sentence
• The most notable trend attributed to Harry Potter has been an increase in literacy among the young. - "literacy" is not the best word; it most often means "ability to read"
• Indeed as the series progresses, each book gets progressively longer, developing along with the reader's literary abilities. - "reading abilities" perhaps?

Images:

• As you mention that there are two different covers for adult and children, it might be nice to have a picture comparing them for one of the books.
• The images kind of peter out at the end of the article - could we have more there?

Let me know if the editors have any questions regarding this review. Awadewit | talk 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)