35:
586:, so the topic of greatest interest to readers is how it will turn out, which is inherently speculative. The best way to improve the article would be to increase its analysis of the character, his motivations, and what this is likely to mean for book 7. But that is liable to conflict with the 'rules' of wikipedia.
687:
which is FA despite the fact that new episodes are forthcomming. This was a point raised during the failed FA candidacy and as one reviewer wrote . "Material can become incorporated later. And it's not like any subject is totally static; new developments can occur for just about any article. Besides,
600:
tempting and objectionable? I still support Harry Potter as a candidate because it's much easier to find scholarly analysis for the general literary stuff than it would be to find it for Lord
Voldemort, but maybe we should consider going for and article more detached from the series' text itself like
570:
Regretablly, the
Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Harry Potter has been a resounding failure. Despite over a year and a half of good faith efforts, the consensus choice of Lord Voldemort, is little more than a plot summary. It is no better today than it was the day it was first nominated. I
159:"Series" should be prosified for moved to the bottom of the page. Better yet would be to simply use {{further|[[:Category:Harry Potter books|Harry Potter books}} (I'm not sure on my coding there), or to generate a comprehensive list of HP media and make an article called "List of Harry Potter Media."
581:
well, this is not simply apathy. An awful lot of people have edited that article in that time, and vandals notwithstanding, I am confident most of them were good faith edits intended to improve the article as that editor saw it. The difficulty is that most people consider how it is now to be pretty
629:
article for improvement. In my humble opinion, it makes sense that priority number one be the series article itself. It's the most visible article under the project's scope and with its 85 diverse references and A-Class status, I'd say it's the closest to a FAC the project has right now. It needs
599:
article mostly in the area of liteary analysis (characters, themes, motiffs, structure) and steering clear of OR too. That seems to be all of the articles' biggest problem. In order to bring an article to FA status, perhaps then it would be best to steer away from articles for which OR is too
135:
Regarding "Reception": "Literary
Criticism" could be spun into its own "Criticsm" section, followed by "Controversies," which would include the "Injuction..." (title shortened to "Canadian injunction" or some such). A personal peeve of mine is the use of section headers for small sections, so
243:. Now that Book 6 has been published, there's plenty of information available about both his past and present in the books. As a major character, the article would appeal to non-fans, yet as a mysterious character, the article would appeal to those who are fans.
630:
heavy copy editing (mainly for sentence structure and
British Spellings), heavy referencing from reliable scholarly sources for the literary stuff, and the destruction of cruftiness and Original Research (which is minimal compared to other HP articles).
116:
I'd like to nominate this, the series article. It just recently made the good article category (though I'm not sure how long it will last). The Lord
Voldemort article doesn't seem as active these days and today the HP article got some good feed back from
153:"See Also": either make the formatting more consistent (and filming locations should not be its own subsection), or simply remove them all and refer to the category. You might also want to consider expanding the navigation box for this purpose.
346:
I decided today I wanted to start work on an article to try and bring it to
Featured Status, so I came here, thinking that this page had gone inactive. What I hadn't noticed until now was the apparent consensus for making
383:
well cited, that is a very very important criteria for
Featured Article status. We need to make sure we use the correct inline citation format, and we also need to find references for the assertions of the article.
411:
I also propose that we use the article Talk page to discuss the text of the article itself, ie "This sentence should not be in" etc., and use this forum to organize and list out what tasks need to be done: ie,
70:
173:, the article name shouldn't be repeated. Something like "Commericial success" would be better. Perhaps you could list how many books, DVDs, games, soundtracks, etc. have been sold.
21:
136:
consider using definition lists or just simple paragraphs to make a long section. The plagarism section could be cut down to two or three sentences and put in the controversy.
688:
feature status isn't irrevocable." This was before the title came out though, and people might feel different now and there will be added stability questions too.
51:
17:
394:
3. Copyediting: The article text should be flawless. Personally, I feel I'm a pretty decent copyeditor, so that's something I'll be looking at a lot.
170:
163:
95:
Please nominate an article you think the
Project's members could focus on, to serve as a model article and potential featured article candidate.
749:
734:
730:
697:
676:
672:
640:
608:
590:
575:
571:
would therefore like to call for new nominations, along with a general recommitment from the project to HP article improvement.
525:
499:
485:
459:
450:
441:
431:
333:
324:
307:
298:
279:
270:
261:
247:
235:
223:
206:
190:
84:
387:
2. Completeness: Does the article discuss everything that there is to discuss encyclopedically about Lord
Voldemort? What
554:
508:
I'm up for either. Let me know where I should start. And is there a WP page that explains in depth the <ref: -->
42:
582:
good, and don't see ways to improve it, at least not ways to improve it which can steer clear of OR. This book is
648:
Can it be FA even though the series isn't finished? Wouldn't that kind of prevent it from being all-inclusive? --
355:, but I'm cool with either one. It looks like some good works been done on Voldemort, and it's been tagged as a
716:
658:
296:
257:
218:
316:
684:
125:
726:
668:
293:
455:
Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of when we had been talking about getting the Snape article FA'ed. -
83:
Several users have expressed an interest in trying to improve a Harry Potter related article to a
139:
The "Other analagous works" section is of dubious value for its length, and the dearth of inline
359:. So I'd like to propose what I think needs to happen for the article to reach Featured Status:
124:
Synopses of the plot and major characters are needed, a few paragraphs each should do it. (See
330:
253:
215:
356:
140:
496:
456:
447:
438:
428:
276:
203:
405:
121:
and it would be great to have some help (or at the very least debate) on these suggestions
267:
214:. I've done a little work on it, but it could be pushed up to FA status with some help. --
437:
Sounds like a pretty good deal. We've already had one FA so the more can do the better. -
398:
144:
721:
712:
708:
663:
654:
650:
587:
521:
515:
511:
481:
475:
471:
348:
240:
549:
492:
321:
313:
228:
118:
694:
637:
626:
618:
605:
601:
596:
572:
542:
469:
Well is this still on? I'm up for copyediting and whatnot to get Voldy featured. --
401:. I think we need to get the citations and copyedits in before we take that step.
352:
244:
211:
187:
99:
156:"Releases": What about the movies and games? What were their rankings and revenue?
149:"any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor."
397:
4. Peer Review: The next step in the process would be submitting the article to
199:
103:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
232:
304:
285:
746:
404:
5. FAC" Once we've had a Peer Review on the article, take it to
702:
All right then, Harry Potter would definitely be the easiest.
379:
1. Citation: I think we need to make sure that the article is
29:
162:"The Future": "The" generally should not go in headings (per
491:
Eh, it hasnt seen much activity. Personally I'm focusing on
422:
here's things the article doesn't discuss that it should
166:), and this section should arguably go under "Overview."
351:
the featured article drive article, and I was thinking
553:, and there's a bit of an argument about it going on
683:Yes it's possible. I would point to the TV series
79:WikiProject Harry Potter Article Improvement Drive
391:be discussed? That is a topic to explore further
745:Support - A-Class, but there is some way to go.
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Harry Potter
8:
509:command? It's a bit confusing. Thanks. --
446:Am I that out of it? What got featured?
595:I see. We've had problems writing the
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
169:"Harry Potter the Brand": also per
625:I would like to nominate the main
414:research and verify this assertion
143:makes it vulnerable to charges of
28:
693:It's possible, but it's not 100%
291:<Rubs his hands together: -->
33:
288:12:10 (Seattle time) on 8/11/05
1:
750:17:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
735:05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
698:22:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
677:21:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
641:20:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
609:23:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
591:12:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
576:20:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
460:18:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
451:19:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
442:11:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
432:05:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
334:22:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
308:19:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
325:09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
299:20:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
768:
526:11:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
500:03:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
486:03:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
280:21:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
538:Well personally I prefer
271:21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
262:21:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
248:16:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
236:18:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
224:18:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
207:14:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
252:Second this nomination.
191:07:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
418:copyedit this paragraph
106:4 July 2005 15:14 (UTC)
495:, but that's just me.
46:of past discussions.
685:The Wire (TV series)
635:Nominate and Support
87:level of quality.
342:Improvement Drive
145:original research
76:
75:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
759:
719:
661:
547:
541:
518:
478:
319:
85:featured article
67:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
758:
757:
756:
717:
659:
623:
568:
566:New Nominations
552:to <ref: -->
545:
539:
516:
476:
344:
317:
93:
81:
63:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
765:
763:
755:
754:
753:
752:
740:
739:
738:
737:
690:
689:
680:
679:
643:
622:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
567:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
548:(as I used in
531:
530:
529:
528:
503:
502:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
377:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
349:Lord Voldemort
343:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
327:
310:
301:
294:Lord Voldemort
289:
282:
273:
264:
241:Lord Voldemort
238:
226:
209:
196:
195:
194:
193:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
167:
160:
157:
154:
151:
137:
130:
129:
108:
107:
92:
89:
80:
77:
74:
73:
68:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
764:
751:
748:
744:
743:
742:
741:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
720:
714:
711:
710:
705:
701:
700:
699:
696:
692:
691:
686:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
662:
656:
653:
652:
647:
644:
642:
639:
636:
633:
632:
631:
628:
621:
620:
616:
610:
607:
603:
598:
594:
593:
592:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
565:
556:
551:
550:J. K. Rowling
544:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
527:
524:
523:
519:
514:
513:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
498:
494:
493:J. K. Rowling
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
483:
479:
474:
473:
461:
458:
454:
453:
452:
449:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
425:
423:
419:
415:
409:
407:
402:
400:
395:
392:
390:
385:
382:
375:FAC Candidate
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
361:
360:
358:
354:
350:
341:
335:
332:
328:
326:
323:
320:
315:
311:
309:
306:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:Excellent. --
290:
287:
283:
281:
278:
274:
272:
269:
265:
263:
260:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
246:
242:
239:
237:
234:
230:
229:Ginny Weasley
227:
225:
222:
221:
217:
213:
210:
208:
205:
201:
198:
197:
192:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
172:
168:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
133:
132:
131:
127:
123:
122:
120:
119:User:Monocrat
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
101:
98:
97:
96:
90:
88:
86:
78:
72:
69:
66:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
19:
715:
707:
703:
657:
649:
645:
634:
627:Harry Potter
624:
619:Harry Potter
617:
602:J.K. Rowling
597:Harry Potter
583:
569:
520:
510:
480:
470:
468:
426:
421:
417:
413:
410:
403:
396:
393:
388:
386:
380:
378:
366:Completeness
357:Good Article
353:Harry Potter
345:
329:Seconded. --
312:Seconded. --
256:
219:
212:Sirius Black
148:
147:. Remember:
113:
100:Harry Potter
94:
82:
64:
47:
41:
497:Ëvilphoenix
448:Ëvilphoenix
429:Ëvilphoenix
399:Peer Review
372:Peer Review
369:Copyediting
200:Remus Lupin
186:Any takers?
91:Nominations
40:This is an
22:Improvement
584:unfinished
457:Hoekenheef
439:Hoekenheef
427:Thoughts?
381:completely
303:Seconded.
284:Seconded.
277:Hoekenheef
275:Seconded.
268:Chosen One
266:Seconded.
204:Hoekenheef
126:WP:FICTION
114:Nominate:'
588:Sandpiper
331:Cremepuff
141:citations
71:Archive 2
65:Archive 1
424:, etc.
363:Citation
254:Hermione
20: |
704:Support
695:TonyJoe
646:Comment
638:TonyJoe
606:TonyJoe
573:TonyJoe
245:Dmleach
220:phoenix
188:TonyJoe
171:the MOS
164:the MOS
43:archive
389:should
104:bjwebb
314:Ariad
233:drak2
216:Death
16:<
706:. --
555:here
522:edel
482:edel
305:Krun
286:Tjss
258:1980
747:RHB
733:||
722:del
709:Fbv
675:||
664:del
651:Fbv
543:ref
512:Fbv
472:Fbv
420:or
416:or
408:.
406:FAC
731:☛c
729:/
727:☑t
725:/
713:65
673:☛c
671:/
669:☑t
667:/
655:65
546:}}
540:{{
517:65
477:65
322:ss
231:--
102:--
718:e
660:e
604:.
557:.
318:o
202:-
128:)
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.