Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Watson/archive1

Emma Watson
This good article is WikiProject Harry Potter's best hope for its next featured article. Any comments and criticisms are solicited before it braves featured article candidacy. Happy-melon 17:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Gran

 * I'm not sure, this article is very good and all, but because Emma's still young, it might be to early for an FAC run. But I don't know, it is good enough quality. Few points:
 * ✅ Refs 27 & 28 need to be properly formatted.
 * ✅ Can a news source be found instead of HPANA for ref 25? I know its a reliable source, but its is a fansite, and I think a mainstream news source would be better.
 * I've replaced it with another reference to her official website.
 * ✅ Her official site link in the infobox needs to be properly formatted with a link title.
 * ✅ And some of the refs (like 16 & 17) are the same thing. Now I know its just the different pages of each thing, but I think its best practice just to cite the first page of the article, for each ref.
 * ✅ And in case the title isn't deemed obvious, ref 11 needs to be noted that its in German.


 * Any questions about the review, then please ask. Gran2 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two questions, above. Many thanks for the response.  Happy-melon 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * New ref is fine, what I mean for the Offcial site link, is for it to be written as EmmaWatsonOfficial.com. Gran2 19:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Review by Melty girl
Last night, I wrote this review over on WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Emma Watson -- today, I went looking for it on Peer_review and saw only the above review. I'm pasting it in here so that you don't miss it. --Melty girl 15:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. For me, the main issue to address is the confusing organization of the sections of the article. Their order and hierarchy seems confused, and the section names are often misleading. But these things are easily fixed. First, about the broader outline of the article:
 * ❌ The first section is called "Biography," yet the following three sections all seem to be biographical; for example, what is "Personal life," if not part of a person's biography? I would indent the second, third and fourth sections under the "Biography" section heading -- this would make them become subsections instead of topline sections.
 * This is the only issue raised that I have difficulty in agreeing to. I feel that indenting these two sections (the third, "Watson on Hermione Granger") is now removed) would unbalance the table of contents.  It would, in fact, leave only three top-level headings, being "biography", "filmography" and "awards".  Given that the last two are connected to the article proper rather than being an integral part of it (in as much as they are lists rather than prose), the article is left with only one top-level heading, which is inappropriate.  While "personal life" could arguably be placed under biography in a longer article, it can also arguably be kept separated.  I consider "professional relationships" to be an inappropriate addition to the "biography" top-level heading.  Just my £0.02 Happy-melon 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ What is wrong with three top-level headings? I think it breaks things up nicely into narrative, filmography, awards. But if you're attached to separating "Personal life" and "Professional relationships" outside of "Biography," this leaves you a little lopsided in a way I didn't intend with my previous recommendations. This is what I'd suggest: 1) Break out "Early years" into topline section (akin to the logic behind "Personal life" being topline), 2) Rename "Biography" as "Acting career", 3) Move "Professional relationships" above "Personal life". --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A good compromise. Happy-melon 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Onto organization within the sections:
 * ✅ I would put Filmography before Awards. I think it's better to read about the parts played before reading which of these roles won awards.
 * ✅ The last three paragraphs in the "Harry Potter..." subsection would probably be better separated into their own subsection, called something like "Celebrity and wealth," because they are about Watson's celebrity, not her involvement in making Harry Potter films.
 * ✅ I would lose the "Interests" subtitle under "Personal life". It's superflous, since "Personal life" is good enough, and the second paragraph in that section doesn't describe "Interests" anyway, leaving only one short paragraph.
 * ✅ Similarly to "Interests", the "Watson on Hermione Granger" doesn't accurately describe what's in that section. There's info on Watson herself, as well as Watson on Rowling. I would lose this section title and simply work this text into the "Harry Potter" section -- except for the feminist comment, which I would move to "Personal life," since it's really a comment about Watson herself.
 * I've moved the quote by Rowling to "professional relationships", where it seems more appropriate. The extended blockquote goes into "celebrity" and the IGN quote gets lost.
 * Nice! --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Minor edit: I would remove the periods that follow the dates in the Filmography box. Those dates are not sentences.
 * Where exactly? There are no periods anywhere in the infobox that I can see.  Happy-melon
 * There's a period following each date in the Filmography box's Notes column. --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha. Gotcha.  All gone.  Happy-melon 13:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that once you rearrange the article some, you'll also find yourself tightening up some of the language and the flow. You've got a great start; I think you just need to be a little more strict about the organization of the article. Cheers, Melty girl 03:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been through this article with a red pen twice for copyediting, once forwards and once backwards. I know that Onomatopoeia has copyedited it too.  I'm therefore concerned (although not offended) by any language issues you might raise.  Can you give any specific examples of where the language and flow need to be "tightened"?  Do you think it needs to be sent to the league of copyeditors?  Happy-melon 20:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm trying to say is that when you rearrange sections wholesale, you often need to make subtle changes to compensate for things that now come first instead of last, and so on. --Melty girl 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Still at least a few issues
I just corrected a minor style thing. I'm moving right now, so I don't have time to continue this process more deeply, but I noticed that there are still at least two placement things that were not addressed, if not more: The new Celebrity section has items that do not relate to her Celebrity status. And why does the feminism paragraph start with "Finally"? Is it because it used to follow something else where "Finally" made sense? I strongly suggest that you be more ruthless about organizational issues and related writing/flow issues before braving FAC. Have fun with the article. --Melty girl 00:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, DTGardner 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: hasn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]