Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article.--Finalnight (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewed below--Finalnight (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * The summaries have been shortened as much as I could. Since I did, there have been no more complains on this subject. They might need a bit of rework to present them in a more non-in-universe style, but this was a reason to place on hold, not to fail. diego_pmc (talk)
 * I failed it so you wouldn't have to deal with the time constraints of a typical 7-day on-hold window as the affected parts comprise almost half the article. Later today, I may present some shortened summaries, I have helped other fictional GA's with this before, its a common but fixable issue.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The summaries have been shortened as much as I could. Since I did, there have been no more complains on this subject. They might need a bit of rework to present them in a more non-in-universe style, but this was a reason to place on hold, not to fail. diego_pmc (talk)
 * I failed it so you wouldn't have to deal with the time constraints of a typical 7-day on-hold window as the affected parts comprise almost half the article. Later today, I may present some shortened summaries, I have helped other fictional GA's with this before, its a common but fixable issue.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * What exactly do you mean by "cut off" and an example f possible. diego_pmc (talk)
 * I am not sure what you mean by "cut off", I don't remember writing that anywhere.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)\
 * I meant "came off". diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant "came off". diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * The second half (I guess you mean Synopsis section) is entirely cited, using this link. The link is included in the References section. In-line citation was not used here, as it would have been impractical to cite one source for a whole section. diego_pmc (talk)
 * The citation should be attached to the header of the section it was used in as that section comprises a large section of the article and is likely to be challenged due to lack of context which means in-line citation should be used according to GA criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also thought about putting the ref in between the == ==, but I don't like the fact that the number of the ref is also shown in the Contents box. Is there a way to make it only show the ref in the actual section title, and not in the contents box as well? Or maybe an introduction should be made in the synopsis section, where the ref would fit well. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also thought about putting the ref in between the == ==, but I don't like the fact that the number of the ref is also shown in the Contents box. Is there a way to make it only show the ref in the actual section title, and not in the contents box as well? Or maybe an introduction should be made in the synopsis section, where the ref would fit well. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * C. No original research:
 * See above. diego_pmc (talk)
 * See above. diego_pmc (talk)


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * Since I shortened the summaries Phoenixrod has not posted any more comments, his last objection being in May. About the changes: they have not been controvesil, except one in which Man in Black complained about the lack of importance of a statement. This dispute has been solved, the statement being removed in the end. Also the criteria says positive actifity is not to be judged as instability. diego_pmc (talk)
 * Is the editor even still active? My concern was that the issues presented appeared to not have been fully addressed which could lead to further conflict at any point, hence it being unstable. Though, if it were to be reevaluated, I could see this part being changed to pass.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His last edit was on June 18[1 ] so I guess he's pretty active. At least he was when I shortened the summaries. Anyway after they are re-re-shortened, I will ask for his opinion. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone could have given me a heads-up on my talk page. I felt that the above discussions were not being resolved with only two editors disagreeing, and I left this article for some time to clear my head; I just returned to it. My main objections, as I recall, were 1) Too much lengthy summary of the Amazon information (I still believe that a link would be simpler and not take up a disproportionate chunk of the article, although short summaries should be workable); and 2) Citation issues, including a lack of references for the stories' summaries. The GA review seems to have raised those issues again. I can certainly reserve my evaluation until the new summaries are ready, though. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I shortened the summaries Phoenixrod has not posted any more comments, his last objection being in May. About the changes: they have not been controvesil, except one in which Man in Black complained about the lack of importance of a statement. This dispute has been solved, the statement being removed in the end. Also the criteria says positive actifity is not to be judged as instability. diego_pmc (talk)
 * Is the editor even still active? My concern was that the issues presented appeared to not have been fully addressed which could lead to further conflict at any point, hence it being unstable. Though, if it were to be reevaluated, I could see this part being changed to pass.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * His last edit was on June 18[1 ] so I guess he's pretty active. At least he was when I shortened the summaries. Anyway after they are re-re-shortened, I will ask for his opinion. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone could have given me a heads-up on my talk page. I felt that the above discussions were not being resolved with only two editors disagreeing, and I left this article for some time to clear my head; I just returned to it. My main objections, as I recall, were 1) Too much lengthy summary of the Amazon information (I still believe that a link would be simpler and not take up a disproportionate chunk of the article, although short summaries should be workable); and 2) Citation issues, including a lack of references for the stories' summaries. The GA review seems to have raised those issues again. I can certainly reserve my evaluation until the new summaries are ready, though. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: