Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince/archive1

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what I need to do to help this article reach GA status.

Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 00:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey Glimmer. Overall, I'd say it's a decent article. Here's my two cents on what could be added or improved:
  • Make sure the article is accessible to a general reader. Pretend that whoever stumbles across the page has never read a Harry Potter book before (seems unlikely, but work with me.) Starting with the lead: "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth of seven novels in the Harry Potter series by British author J. K. Rowling." Ok, that makes sense. The next line, however, loses that reader almost instantly: "Set during Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, the novel explores Lord Voldemort's past, and Harry's preparations for the final battle amidst emerging romantic relationships and the emotional confusions and conflict resolutions characteristic of mid-adolescence." Who is Harry Potter? Where's Hogwarts? Who's Lord Voldemort? What's this "final battle"? And what the heck does "and the emotional confusions and conflict resolutions characteristic of mid-adolescence." have to do with the work's greater whole? The plot introduction does a fairly good job, but then irrelevant details start bogging down the plot, e.g., "Before returning they find out that Emmeline Vance and Amelia Susan Bones are murdered by Lord Voldemort.", or "Harry hides it in the Room of Requirement." You've got to audit things from an outsider's perspective.
  • The plot seems to contain wishy-washy, non-straightforward plot descriptions ("no one seems to believe him") and overall can be cut down. Why do we need to know the symbol is hovering over the astronomy tower? Why do we need to know the exact way Ron is nearly killed in an attempt on Dumbledore's life?
  • The "Franchise" section is almost entirely irrelevant to this article.
  • We only get a paragraph on the development and writing of the book?
  • Why is "After publication, a banner draped over a bridge on a busy road in Telford proclaimed who died in the book, which may have spoiled the ending for many readers who had not yet completed the book" important? There were tons of people around the world screaming "Snape kills Dumbledore" at release parties, why single this out?
  • The latter sections of the article suffer from a lack of research. There's not much depth into critical reception beyond "X liked it", and there's only six or seven critics quoted for a sentence.
• Overall, I think the article needs a substantial overhaul and addition of content. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)