Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Harry Potter parodies

List of Harry Potter parodies
I've never done this before, so I have no idea how this will be received, but I like it, so I'm nominating it :-) Serendipodous 07:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Make external links references. Buc 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are external links references? Serendipodous 10:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He means, move then into the references section. Also, part of the lead needs to be bolded, and the link to youtube in the "straight to hell for practising witchcraft" needs to be removed. Gran2 10:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Serendipodous 12:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Only some have been changed. Buc 17:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fails criterion 1a. It is quite hard to judge 1b here (it is a dynamic list). You need fair-use-rationale for each copyright image that mention why it is fair-use for this article (they can't be shared). The inline web links are not an acceptable method of sourcing your text. You need a full citation in the References section. You need to enforce your entry-criteria (Parody of Harry Potter). Some of the entries are merely humorous articles touching on Harry Potter / JK Rowling. Some of the Onion entries look to be just news stories. I see the peer review is still open. Generally you should wait for the review period to end before submitting to FL/FA. I'm doubtful you could actually get this to pass 1a since each entry isn't notable enough to warrant an article (1.a.1) and there isn't a finite set of parodies (1.a.3). That's no reason not to improve things per MOS, etc. Colin°Talk 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How long should one wait before one declares a peer review dead? That PR has been active for over two weeks without a single response. There are no straight news stories in the Onion; they are pure parody. Some people have mistaken their articles for genuine news, but they are nothing of the kind. If I can't get this list featured without removing the inline citations, then I'd rather not. If there's a direct link to the parody itself, people have a right to click onto it without having to sort through a hard-to-read citation list. Serendipodous 19:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrt direct links, I think you misunderstand what WP is about: see WP:NOT. We are not here to provide a convenient set of links to online HP parodies. Lists on WP are meant to provide links to other WP articles, first and foremost. Colin°Talk 17:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh OK then. Sorry if I was a bit snappy there; I was in the middle of a nasty wikiwar. Still, you have to admit the current layout is fun. Re Youtube links still OK to use as references? Sometimes they're the only refs I can find. Serendipodous 17:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose until proper fair use rationales are provided. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 19:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've provided citations for all of the images I've uploaded, and added citations for the shared images. Serendipodous 19:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's kind of weak on Image:Harrypottercow.jpg; not sure that one even needs to be included. -- Phoenix2  (holla) 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)