Talk:Wizarding World/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 05:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll take over this one. Looks good at first glance but I should be finished for a few days.


 * 1) Well written
 * 2) *Prose:
 * 3) *Style
 * 4) **Overall:
 * 5) **Lead section:
 * 6) **Article layout:
 * 7) **Words to watch:
 * 8) **Writing about fiction:
 * 9) **List incoperation:
 * 10) Verifiable
 * 11) *Citations:
 * 12) *Reliable sources:
 * 13) *No Original Research:
 * 14) *Copyright Violations:
 * 15) *Plagiarism:
 * 16) Broad in coverage
 * 17) *All major aspects:
 * 18) *No unnecessary detail:
 * 19) Neutral point of view
 * 20) * Overall:
 * 21) * Due weight given to topics:
 * 22) Stable:
 * 23) Images
 * 24) * Well illustrated (if possible):
 * 25) * Images tagged with copyright info:
 * 26) * Fair use rationale given for non-free content:
 * 27) * Images are relevant:
 * 28) Pass/Fail:

General comments

 * The Earwig tool detects a 75.7% confidence from a webzine, quite serious issue.
 * That website copied the text from this article and Harry Potter (film series). It has Wikipedia as a source at the bottom. You can also still see the reference numbers from Wikipedia that they forgot to remove in the 'Future and Spin-off movies' part. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why the first paragraphs in the Harry Potter films 1-4 are unsourced whilst 5-7 are?
 * The first paragraphs are premises/plots, so per WP:FILMPLOT a source is not required. When I was able to find a good source with the premise of the film, I included it, but I couldn't find any for the first four Harry Potter films. I could put reviews of the films that included plot summaries. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Could you explain how those Harry Potter fansites are reliable? DailyMail, which is cited ref. 36, is no longer vetted as a reliable source per Potentially unreliable sources
 * Changed ref. 36. The Leaky Cauldron has been used on multiple other Harry Potter GAs. - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think 'Future' is a bad section header. Can you come up with an alternative?
 * What about 'Other sequels' or 'Undated sequels'? - Brojam (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: There are no more problems with the article so I'm happy to say that I am now passing this GAN. It's a very nice, broad article that provides an overview of the Harry Potter franchise, which is helpful to those (myself included) who are overwhelmed visiting the HP-related articles individually. You might be interested in nominating it for WP:DYK as its a newly-promoted GA. Slightly  mad  05:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! - Brojam (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)