Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. K. Rowling

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 promoted 17:28, 8 December 2007.

---

J. K. Rowling

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has already completed a peer review and has undergone substantial revision and expansion since it became a good article. Serendi^podous 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from JayHenry

I'm really worried about the quality of the sources. A tremendous amount of this article is sourced to sites that appear to be fan sites, such as hp-lexicon.org, accio-quote.org, veritaserum.com, mugglenet, and other non-reliable sources such as about.com, infoplease.com, monstersandcritics.com. I think we need to work to find much better sources. She's a major author, so interviews and stories in newspapers shouldn't be hard to find. --JayHenry 02:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Accio Quote is not just a "fansite." It's a searchable archive of every interview JK Rowling has ever given. It is exquisitely sourced and utterly comprehensive. If it were about William Shakespeare or Charles Dickens, it would be considered a major academic research tool. If citations from Accio Quote were disallowed, about half of JK Rowling's online quotes would be unusable. I'm on the fence about HP-Lexicon; even JK Rowling admits that that site knows more about her world than she does, but much of the information quoted from that site could be alternately sourced. As for the rest, it depends on whether the quotations involve information quoted by the site itself, or if they involve interviews Rowling has given to those sites, which would qualify as valid primary sources.

As long as Accio-quote references clearly note the real source of the quote, that's fine with me. hp-lexicon is still a fan site, and of course as a savvy author she's not going to criticize a group of core fans. The creators of Homestar also say that hrwiki.org knows everything. That doesn't make it a reliable source. Whenever these sources are used to cite interviews she gave I suppose that's okay. But it looks to me like they are being used for significantly more information than this. About.com is not acceptable as a source. I don't think I'm being unreasonable here. She is the best-selling author of the last decade and there is tons of information from reliable sources about her; this article is just not using enough of it (further: fan sites often simply plagiarize or copyvio the reliable sources). Also, in my opinion, the controversies that are dealt with extensively in the articles in See Also need to be summarized a bit more here. Reliable sources are the necessary place to get the information (fan sites don't present this sort of thing neutrally). --JayHenry 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not at all worried about the sources. The HP-lexicon is basically a resource that finds and organizes everything Harry Potter related. If Rowling finds it accurate and it has been used to create the info on the collectible cards, it's impossible to call it unreliable. Other so-called fansites like Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron are not acutally random fansites, but when it comes to the sourced pages, newsites that either report news by other agencies or the occasional original report. They even had interviews with Rowling herself. No matter what your definition of fansite is, that makes them a reliable source of information. - Mgm

Support. This article was already very good and the recent flurry of improvements has pushed it across the line. Thanks for your hard work on this! --JayHenry 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Article is well-written and well-cited. The editors were very prompt in addressing concerns - thanks! Karanacs 19:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I think there might be comprehensiveness issues and there are a few minor things that should be fixed. Overall, whoever, it is a well-written and well-cited article.
  • Not all of the citations have publishers listed
  • Rather than cite Mugglenet for some of the news blurbs, can you follow the links in the Mugglenet postings to the original articles and use those as the sources?
    • If they are not the primary source that is a good idea. I'm just saying they are a fine news source themselves. Site founder Emerson Spartz had his own interview with Rowling together with Melissa Anneli and he's been on, I think it was, FOX news as their Harry Potter expert whenever Harry or Rowling made the news. I'd hardly consider them just a fansite or in any way unreliable. (In fact, they're the ones that often cleared up if something was just a rumor or actually true - something newspapers have failed at). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of the citations are formatted so that the newspaper name is italicized and some are not. Please be consistent.
    • Citation formatting still needs major work. I made it through the Harry Potter books section and have reformatted all of that, but the remainder of the citations need attention. Many of them are missing authors or full publication dates (or any publication date). I had to open each of the refs and see if there was more information available. Also, please note that only newspapers/magazines should be italicized, and please be consistent in the way the citations are formatted (author first, then title/link, then publisher, publication date, and access date).

Some of the articles have no authors listed. Also, I've never had to list the full publication date of an internet page, not in any of the featured articles I've created to date. Year, and that was that. Sometimes, the year is listed in the article, and sometimes it isn't. Serendi^podous 15:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that a lot of the website are actually mirrors for articles in newspapers that have actual publication dates. If it's in The Scotsman, it should have a full publication date. Beyond that the citations are not formatted consistently (at least the ones under the Harry Potter books section and need to be fixed. Karanacs 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • You might want to add a wikilink to Today Show
  • There is no information in the article about HP 5&6 and minimal about 4. I think they should at least be mentioned.
  • There is also no information about her relationship with the press. I think it is significant that she gave only 2 interviews for HBP and a small number of interviews when the last book came out. - Nice job! Karanacs 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Only two? Are you sure? Serendi^podous 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not sure of the number, but I remember it was a small number. I know she's had issues with the press (which gave us Gilderoy Lockhart), and I think those should be mentioned. Karanacs 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • I think some information about the copyright infringement suit needs to be in this article, as that was essentially an attack on Rowling's character.

The copyright infringement suit is discussed in Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series, which was branched off this article when it got too long. Serendi^podous 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but some of it should also be summarized here. To properly use summary style, a summary of the information should be retained in the parent article. The copyright infringement is one of the few lawsuits that touched Rowling personally and deserves mention in the article about her. Karanacs 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Per WP:EL, you need to remove the external links from the body of the article (in the article section). These can be included in the External links section. Karanacs 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • done Serendi^podous 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

*Additional comments

• • Be sure that all quotations have a citation at the end of the sentence (or the end of the quotation). I fixed a few places where two sentences in a row had snippets of quotations but the citation was only at the end of the second sentence (it needs to be duplicated), but I see more examples of that.
    • I've edited one iffy one. Can't see any more. oop. Found another one. Serendi^podous 16:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rootsweb is not a reliable source (I say this as an amateur genealogist who uses the site). Anyone can post anything there, and there is no way to tell if that information is accurate. Citation 14 needs to be replaced.
    • done. Serendi^podous 15:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Karanacs 15:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis that it is far better than most articles I have seen.

Remark: I am glad "J. K. Rowling is considered famous" is not in the lead as some articles would have it. Leranedo 07:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The article reads: "Some have speculated that Rowling's fraught relationship with the press was the inspiration behind the character Rita Skeeter." Who are these speculators?
• The "After Harry Potter" section mentions that Rowling may write a HP encyclopedia. I remember that, after first stating this, Rowling (maybe at Carnegie Hall) added that she had not begun work on the encyclopedia and was not planning to do so for a while. Maybe this should be noted?
• Also, I'm wondering if the "see also" section is necessary, since links to all three of those articles can be found in the Harry Potter template at the bottom of the page.

Otherwise, terrific article! -Hobbesy3 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• • done. I don't think I could list every speculator on the planet, but as long as she's saying it and not me, that should be enough. Serendi^podous 05:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is more about the Harry Potter series than it is Rowling. Buc 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• • Reordered. Serendi^podous 08:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I don't think the Name section should be first. In fact everything in that section seem a bit too trival for it to have it's own section. Buc 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In another article it would be, but not in this one. Believe it or not, JK Rowling's full name is one of the most controversial topics in this article's history. It's been argued in every way shape and form imaginable. Everything, from how it is pronounced, to whether she has a middle name, to whether her married name is Murray, has been discussed, dissected, and even occasionally edit-warred. There are a number of common mistakes people make about JK Rowling's name, the most common being that her middle name is Kathleen (It isn't). We made a note, but people continued to edit her name to include Kathleen. We added an invisotext warning, and people continued to write Kathleen. We created the separate "Name" section, and people still did it. With every new "Kathleen" the name section gradually migrated from the bottom of the page to the top. Finally we semi-protected the page, and now the edits seem to have stopped. Serendi^podous 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Reluctant withdrawal of oppose, since there are still errors. Please attend to them. until properly copy-edited. Here are random samples indicating that the whole text needs treatment, preferably by a new editor.

• 136th, thirteenth, forty-eighth, 65, 15. See MOS.
• Bolding of her name after the lead: see MOS.
• See MOS on final punctuation in quotations.
• "I am not stupid enough to rent an unheated flat in Edinburgh in midwinter. It had heating."—Gripping quote.

So what? It's a quote. It's meant to provide information, not to be gripping. Serendi^podous 14:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Repetitive prose in places: "was the way to make her child fall asleep, and as soon as she was asleep, she would".
• In places, the paragraphing is a little choppy.
• "have even been used in subsequent cases not related to publishing"—"unrelated to".
• And perhaps briefly list those areas?

It wouldn't make sense out of context. Serendi^podous 14:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• No hyphen after "-ly".
• "19th century estate house"—one hyphen required.

Tony (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given the entire article a cleanup (no, I didn't just fix your issues, Tony). If someone else wants to have a go, they're welcome. Serendi^podous 15:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is still messy. Philanthropy section is too long and nearly has one subheading per paragraph - in the words of the FA criteria, this qualifies as "overwhelming". Section can be shortened without loss of information. Example:

The Children's High Level Group is a charity founded in 2005 by Rowling and MEP Emma Nicholson. Its aim is to improve the lot of vulnerable children in Eastern Europe.

can be shortened to

In order to improve the lives of vulnerable children in Eastern Europe, Rowling and MEP Emma Nicholson founded the Children's High Level Group in 2005.

Also, the Honours section has yet to be dealt with - it has an appropriate tag already in it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reduced the Honours section to one sentence per point. Whether that will be enough I cannot say. I have also shortened and de-subsectioned the Philanthropy section. Let me know if that is enough. Serendi^podous 14:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That Honours section should really carry a laundry tag, here's a suggestion (and accordingly for the rest, please):

Rowling holds an honorary DLitt degree from the University of Exeter, a Doctor of Laws (LLD) honorary degree from University of Aberdeen,

The exact timeline is not of broad interest. Also note the comprehensiveness criterion, see http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/honorary04.html

Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the Honours section. It's basically a trivia section, and the list of ever more esoteric honours (Jim Henson?) was becoming ever less relevant. Serendi^podous 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing stance to neutral. Article looks good, and the issues I raised seem to have been resolved. Neutral because I don't have time right now to comb through it again. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Rejoinder—Fixed? Then why was the first thing I saw this (a quotation): "I really don't know where the idea came from,"? Is the comma in the original quote or is it an artifact of the so-called illogical punctuation? The latter, I suspect. There are many final periods before closing quotes, such as She once said, "I believe in God, not magic."
  • "the British Prime Minister"—Check MOS for whether this should be capitalised.

I don't know about MOS, but "Prime Minister", like "President" is always capitalised. Serendi^podous 08:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • 'She’s been self-indulgent'", she told ... Can you fix the quotes?
  • Currencies such as "US" dollars don't need to be linked, according to MOS. Nor the pounds sterling symbol, when the context is obviously the UK.
  • Unsure of the unspaced en dash—is it in the original? It's a glitch if it is: she "was expecting to be amongst lots of similar people–thinking radical thoughts." Again, the dot is better after the closing quotation marks, even if the quote does finish with a period. it's to do also with providing punctuation logically in WP's sentence, which is on a higher level, as it were.

Look, it passes, but I'm concerned that I can find so many glitches so easily. Find a wikifriend to pick out errors that a primary author is too close to identify? Tony (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. You got me on the comma, but Wikipedia:MOS#Punctuation makes plain that a period should be included within the quote if it is part of the quote, just as a question mark or explanation mark would be. I have asked around for an impartial copyedit, but no one is available right now. Serendi^podous 09:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• • You need to follow MOS for promotion and to keep FA status. MOS, I'm quite sure, says lower case for prime minister unless specific context. Tony (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Manual of Style#Titles says that Prime Minister should be capitalised if it is referring to a specific post, but not when it is used generically. So yes, in that context, it would be capitalised. Serendi^podous 12:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.