Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Karanacs 21:11, 19 October 2010.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)

 * Nominator(s): Guy546 ( Talk ) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it appears to pass all FA criteria and the article has gone through an extensive peer review with help fron User:Brianboulton. Comments are highly appreciated. Guy546 ( Talk ) 21:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Looking at the images, I am really not seeing the need for both posters in File:HP1 posters.JPG- surely, just the British poster would be needed? Also, I updated the info on File:Alnwick Castle - Northumberland - 140804.jpg. The other image is fine. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, I am sure to Americans would be more confused with just the British poster, and probably about half the people who visit the page are Americans, seeing the constant outcry of "IT'S SORCERER'S STONE!" Let's see if any more people want just the British poster, though. Guy546 ( Talk ) 22:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything looks really good, but I agree with Guy, it shouldn't be named that way. Most people who read this are in fact American, so I find it to be quite weird.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to be renamed, this alent American people to make Wikipedia an American place. British subject, British title. Tb hotch Ta lk C.  01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - I always like to see film articles trying to make the cut for FA status, but this one falls short for a couple of big reasons right off the bat. First of all, rule number one is, you can't use the user-edited IMDB as a reliable source. The Awards section contains that kind of content. Next, the Reception section containing Critical Reviews is almost non-existent. It's only a handful of critics. For one of the biggest grossing films, and for a film that was released in the last 5-10 years; it should be much larger in content. Like a page and a half for differing critical viewpoints. I'd have to take a look for more problems, but so far, that's what I see. DeWaine (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment You think those few things you mentioned are worth a strong oppose? I'm sorry but I find that a bit ridiculous.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other Comment - It would appear also that there are almost no books that were used as sources for the content. I believe there's only one novel in the list. Everything else looks like it was sourced using only internet sites. Also, reference number 27, looks like it needs to be cleaned up with the HTML. DeWaine (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I fixed the imdb link. I'll work on the other objections later. Also, I have "Ultimate Edition" thing for the film, so do you mind if I use that for reference instead of a book? Thanks. Guy546 ( Talk ) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Response - Well, I'm not familiar with what you call the "Ultimate Edition". I'm just trying to advise you that not all pertinent information for the film will be found online. There are numerous facts surrounding production elements for the film that might be found through books. With the Awards section, you should be able to source the information by going to the official websites. Placing the individual citation next to each award as was done with the first entry for the 74th Academy Awards is best. As far as the reviews are concerned, it needs a major expansion. Two small paragraphs of critique for a film that grossed close to a billion dollars is not going to cut it for FA status. When adding reviews, mix up different viewpoints; both positive and negative, even if the film received mostly positive feedback. It's important for a reader to hear both sides of the story. DeWaine (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll look for more reviews through Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.com. Guy546 ( Talk ) 23:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ok good luck with the reviews. Make it plentiful. So far, everything else content-wise is looking good. But just one quick note, with the Plot section, can you trim some of the details to make it more concise? It's teetering on the border of being a little too long and overly detailed. Also, with the provided plot link at the top which expands into the details; it would make the reduction sufficient for it's shortened length. DeWaine (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment #2 I think this is a great article, and very well written. I would be happy to support it after a few things are addressed. While I won't appose for using it, IMDB really should not be used. Also, I think the lead should be expanded a bit, at least to have 3 full paragraphs. After that I'll take a deeper look and possibly support.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response I am missing the imdb source. Where was it used? I already removed one of them. If you could tell me where it is I would be happy to replace it. Also, I will work on making it three full paragraphs. Thanks. Guy546 ( Talk ) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response I am missing the imdb source. Where was it used? I already removed one of them. If you could tell me where it is I would be happy to replace it. Also, I will work on making it three full paragraphs. Thanks. Guy546 ( Talk ) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The IMDB sourced content is citation number 18 in the References list. Mr. Nathan, the reasons for my oppose encompass as you can see a few major points:


 * Expansion of Critical Response.
 * Properly sourced citations in the Awards section where it's lacking.
 * A reduction in an overly detailed Plot section.
 * An expansion in perhaps the Digital Effects section with Books if possible.
 * And as you pointed out, an increase of content in the Lead.

Those are some pretty hefty corrections to make in a limited time frame. I hope Guy546 finishes it and succeeds. DeWaine (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I also may say, looking at the Awards section again; it has about 3 listed citations. The rest of the entire section is completely unsourced. As I mentioned earlier, I would recommend you insert an individual citation next to each of the awards as is currently displayed for the first accolade by the 74th Academy Awards. DeWaine (talk) 03:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Hope this helps and Thanks! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Could the British units of currency be converted to the American equivalencies and vice versa? I'm an American and the British units mean nothing to me. There are Brits who probably feel the same way about American dollars.
 * The first sentence in the box office section tells us the film had its world premiere in London then we're told at once of its box office success in the US. Could the British box office stats follow the first sentence and then the US stats? How much did Mamma Mia! rake in? Could you tell us if it wouldn't be off-topic or a digression?
 * I'm a general reader and I don't know what "unadjusted" means in the last sentence of the box office section. Could it be explained here or linked for people on the other side of the world reading this with no idea of what this means?
 * In the first sentence of the Cast section it tells us Rowling insisted on keeping the cast British. Why? It tells us the reason in the lead but not here where it belongs. Did she define British? If a kid had an English father and a Italian mother would the kid be British? Would the kid be eligible for a part in the film? Maybe she just meant British citizenship. I don't know, I'm confused.
 * Where were the auditions held? London or in various sites around Britain?
 * Figgis left because the thousands of children auditioned were "unworthy". Were Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint part of this "unworthy" group? Were some of the "unworthy" children cast in other roles?
 * I'm wondering if the Speilberg quote "It's just a slam dunk" could be explained or linked. I don't know what a "slam dunk" is and there are probably readers around the world who don't.
 * The term "put back" confuses me here: "Warner Bros. had initially planned to release the film over a 4 July 2001 weekend, making for such a short production window that several proposed directors pulled themselves out of the running. However due to time constraints the date was put back to 16 November 2001." I think "put back" has a casual, American conversational tone to it. Wouldn't "was moved forward four months" or "rescheduled for a November 2001 date" or something similar be clearer and more encyclopedic, especially for those around the world who have little experience with the complexities of American conversational style?
 * Also, "pulled themselves out of the running" has the same casual tone. Can these casual, conversational American expressions that were possibly picked up from the sources be recast into something encyclopedic? At times I feel I'm reading a pop magazine rather than an encyclopedia.
 * Is there a another way to say "non-author-written sequels" that isn't quite so eye-agitating-and-sterile?
 * "American actor Haley Joel Osment to provide Harry Potter's voice,[29] or a film incorporated elements from subsequent books as well" -- grammar, tenses, or something?
 * There's a lot going on visually in this sentence that makes reading and understanding it a bit of a chore. Could it be slimmed down for fools like me? "[a]nyone who thinks I could (or would) have 'veto-ed' [sic] him [Spielberg] needs their Quick-Quotes Quill serviced." Quick Quotes Quill serviced? It sounds naughty.
 * Could "over a 4 July 2001" be made clearer with something like "over the weekend of 4-6 July 2001" or "release the film on 4 July 2001, a holiday in America...etc."? I think Americans are expected to translate "over a 4 July 2001" as "over the Fourth of July" but people around the world won't translate this and won't know that this date is a hot time for movies in the US. The film was released in Britain on Nov. 4. Nov. 5 is Guy Fawkes Night. Was the British release date chosen because of its nearness to Guy Fawkes Night?
 * There are other casual, American expressions that could be recast as something encyclopedic for readers around the world who may struggle with all the Americanisms: "searched Hollywood", "a cool idea", "pitched the idea", etc. Revamp everything in the article that smacks of a casual American conversational style reminiscent of a pop magazine. Make it encyclopedic.  I read pop style stuff everywhere all day long. Encyclopedic style is a breath of fresh air.
 * If the article wants to be British, put the British poster in the box. If the article wants to be American, put the American poster in the box. Marketing maybe?
 * I thought I was something of an informed person until I read this article. What's a "teaser poster" and a "teaser trailer"? I'm completely out of it and need some linking or explanation. I think there's a lot of this "film community jargon" in the article that's a mystery to a fool like me.
 * The article seems to be written only for fans or those who've saturated themselves in everything Harry Potter. Who's Fluffy?
 * "a poltergeist who likes to prank students" I checked an up-to-date online dictionary. "Prank" is defined as to dress outlandishly. Is this what is meant here. I don't think so. This article has just too much casual American English in it. Rewrite the whole using an encyclopedic style.
 * I agree with another reviewer who thinks books should be cited here. What makes all these sources reliable? Some appear to be celebrity-leak sorts of things and pop gossip and publicity publications. This film is almost 10 ten years old, its book even older. Have either one been tackled by scholars and academics? If so, I'd prefer seeing them cited rather than pop magazines and publicity websites.
 * The article as it stands has a very superficial feel about it. It's listy, is anecdotal here and there, and has little depth of analysis. It seems mainly a  list of the sort of trivia that sets fans drooling. That's OK but can't the article be moved to the next level -- scholarly analysis, investigation, and comment?  Has the film had any impact on filmmaking for children since its release? Are there other legacy aspects? Get some books and scholarly input on this.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.