Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter fandom/archive3

Harry Potter fandom
The main concerns at the article's failed FAC were that the article did not correctly describe the extent of the fandom, and that at times it confused the "fandom" with the "popularity" of HP. I feel that I've cleaned these parts up since then, and I hope that, after the results of this PR, I can resend the article to FAC. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 20:36, 4 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 22:45, 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.[?]
 * ✅ Though the lead is slightly shorter than three or four paragraphs, it still adequately and concisely summarizes the rest of the article. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * ✅ No applicable infobox.
 * Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.[?]
 * ✅ There is no trivia section.
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * ✅ Removed redundancies.
 * The script has spotted the following contractions: haven't, isn't, weren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
 * ✅ Within quotations. --Fbv65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.[?]