Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. Will begin reviewing soon. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The plot is huge and somewhat detailed. Near the end it just disintegrates. (And is the background subsection necessary?) And "This book reveals that it is set in 1992: the cake for Nearly-Headless Nick's 500th deathday party bears the words "Sir Nicholas De Mimsy Porpington died 31st October, 1492". [7]" doesn't seem relevant to the plot and slightly OR

    Done I've compacted it down to two paragraphs. Malinaccier (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Refs 19, 18, 47, 51, & 2 are missing publishers.

    Done Checked and fixed all. Malinaccier (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

• What makes these reliable?

"Stuart, Mary. "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets". curledup.com. http://www.curledup.com/chamber.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-26."

This is reliable because the review is being used for a reviewer's opinion, not for factual information. Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)". IMDb.com, Inc.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/. Retrieved on 2009-05-26"

Replaced with good reference. Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Edits and Changes to the Text". The Harry Potter Lexicon. 2006. http://hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/changes_cs.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-25

Replaced with good reference. Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Add a sentence about the themes to the lead?

•  Done Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Moving the themes & styles section to before reception.

•  Done Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: wikilink the publishers in the refs

•  Done Malinaccier (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Overall, this is a really interesting article that a lot of research went into. (The themes section was especially interesting). I'm putting the article on hold to give some time for the issues to be addressed. Kaguya-chan (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have no idea what is going on here. Everything Malinaccier has done is apparently undone? Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears User:Philcha has reverted my reduction of the plot summary and moved the themes and styles back. I don't know what else he did. I'll try to talk to him. I really don't want to get in an edit war. Malinaccier (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re what's going on:

• I researched sources (see diff of Talk page in May and rewrote the article in late May to early June.
• I was concerned about the plot summary and left it for a couple of weeks in the hope of seeing it with fresh eyes. Then real life intervened, and has kept me rather busy.
• While this was going on someone else nominated it for GA, with a mutilated plot summary and a lead that I thought inadequate (e.g. what happened to the basilisk's victims?) and which contained one fact not presented in the main text, contrary to my understanding of WP:LEAD (""At least as much as they've been attacked from a theological point of view ... by several different faiths"). --21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the plot:

• There was a lot of discussion of plot summary length at Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Philosopher's_Stone/GA2
• Reviewers have commented that: books 1 & 2 are detective stories, with the usual twists and red herrings; JKR has a habit of introducing important points as "sleepers" whose significance becomes apparent much later - the major example of this in Chamber is the diary, which is the first of the horcruxes that are central to books 6 & 7. To put this in perspective, I think I could produce a summary of the Iliad more easily.
• A plot summary that leaves obvious holes has no place in a good article, and makes the book look poorly plotted. The holes will quickly be patched by enthusiasts, probably at greater length, so making the plot summary too short would make the article unstable. I've concentrated on plot elements that show how the main characters arrive at the book's final situation, i.e. on the main causal chain.
• As it is I've omitted or severly reduced several plot strands that reviewers etc. have commented on - the Dobby sub-plot and Nick's deathday party, where Harry's considerate treatment exemplifies the anti-racism message some commentators found; Lockhart's self-promotion and "Lockhartmania", although commentators treat it as one of two examples of "false identity" (the other is Riddle's, charming but murderous), in contrast to Harryu's search for the truth about himself; Harry's withholding information from Dumbledore (about the voices that are portents of basilisk attacks, and which we later realise are Parseltongue), which is an aspect of Harry's habit of ignoring rules and authority.

If you can suggest ways to shorten the plot summary without creating holes, I'll be very happy. If you can do that and find ways to include some of the omitted themes, I'l probably award you a Barnstar - then ask your advice on other books in the series. --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It happened faster than I expected - someone expanded the plot summary although this was soon reverted.

Okay, I understand what you mean about the plot, but I'll ask for a second opinion. Kaguya-chan (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. A discussion on a friend's talk page indirectly reminded me that articles on "intellectual" books have quite extensive summaries of the contents, see for example the FAs Origin of Species, Fertilisation of Orchids and The Age of Reason, the last of which is about a "pamphlet". --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the lead section needs to encapsulate every significant event in the plot from beginning to end seems rather bizarre to me, and I'm not sure what the basis is for it. The "inadequate" linked version looks fine to me. I think the description of the plot should be essentially enough for the reader to see that "This is the book where X happens"; i.e. "This is the book where Hogwarts is terrorized by a series of attacks, alleged to be the work of the returned Heir of Slytherin"; "This is the book where Harry competes in the Triwizard Tournament and Voldemort returns to corporeal form"; "This is the book where Harry learns about Voldemort's past and is introduced to the horcruxes", etc. I mean, that's why there's a Plot section, to answer questions like "What happened to the basilisk's victims?" In the current version, the reader might still be wondering what happened in the last attacks 50 years earlier, or how the boys get to the chamber of secrets, or literally an infinite number of other questions that couldn't possibly all be answered in the lead, nor should they be. Propaniac (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, the plot should be very consise: What are the key items is the story: Harry Potter learning about Voldemort's past at hogworts, finding the book, the attacks on the school, finding out Jinny Weasley was behind it and being controlled by Tom Riddle, what Tom Riddle's exact nature is, defeating the basilisk and stabbing the book to kill Tom and save Jinny. That's it. Info on stuff like the sword, the phionex, parseltouge, all belong in the plot. The lead is suppose to be a short overview of the article.

As for the plot itself, it should not be a blow-by-blow account of the book. Yea it's long, but so too is The Hobbit (if fact it is longer and more complex), and yet is able to encampsulate all that info in shorter description.陣内_Jinnai 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re plot, see my comments above. The first 2 Harry Potter books have unusually complex plots, and also set up points used in later books. I'll have a look at The Hobbit.

Re the lead, when writing and when reviewing, I leave the lead until last, when the main text it's supposed to summarise is stable. Would you be happy to do that in this review? --Philcha (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at The Hobbit as at the end of July 2008, the day it passed GA. Its plot summary is internally coherent, with no loose ends, so meets one of my two criteria for a plot summary. The Hobbit's plot summary also appears to have satisfied readers, as that of the current version has no significant changes from the version that passed GA review a year ago.

My other criterion is "enough to support the cited commentaries", which Malinaccier and I agree is a requirement. I'm still not happy about how well the plot summary of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets meets "enough to support the cited commentaries" - which implies an increase in the plot summary, aaargh! --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to plot summary

I've just noticed another addition that slipped in the last few days. I suggest we list items that may or have been added or removed, so that we can form a consensus, which can be used in order to guide discussions about the changes that will ineveitably be made after this GA review is closed - it's the price of having articles about high-profile subjects :-(

Proposed for addition from plot summary

I've started this list before the "remove" list because additions may require integration into the chain of events. Here are some starters for discussion:

• Very brief account of the Dobby sub-plot in order to illustrate commentaries on the anti-racist theme. E.g. "The house elf Dobby makes a series of attempts to prevent Harry from attending Hogwarts for his second year, because Dobby believes Harry is in great danger. Although Harry strongly objects, the consideration Harry shows Dobby wins the house elf's lasting devotion."
  • Support per "enough to support the cited commentaries". If anyone can see how to make this more concise, go ahead. --Philcha (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As long as we keep it brief, it should be fine. Malinaccier (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm beginning to think this should be in "Themes" as it is not part of the minimal causal chain leading to the ending of the story. And since this and Nick's Deathday are both about the no-prejuduce issue, I think the two pojtn can be bundled fairly concisely. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me (for both this and the Nick's deathday party). Malinaccier (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Very brief account of Nick's deathday party, to illustrate commentaries on the anti-racist theme. E.g. "Harry accepts an invitation to Nearly Headless Nick deathday party instead of the school's Halloween feast, in order to raise Nick's status among the school ghosts, and persuades Ron and Hermione." (pp 99-104 in my copy; immediately before Harry first hears the basilik's voice)
  • Support per "enough to support the cited commentaries". If anyone can see how to make this more concise, go ahead. --Philcha (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Once again, keep it brief. Malinaccier (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In "Themes", per my preceding comment on the Dobby sub-plot? --Philcha (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Just realised both are mentioned very concisely in "Themes" any way, which was the basis of my initial questions - doh! Of course having these bits of plot in "Themes" but not in the plot summary is contrary to whatever guideline we both found. Short-term we'd have to WP:IAR on the grounds of what works in this particular article. I'm beginning to wonder if the guidance itself is too "one size fits all" - but part of me quails at the thought of teh dramaz for which fiction discussions are famous. --Philcha (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• A very brief sentence (or two) to finish up the plot. Right now it just trails off. Kaguya-chan (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I sympathise, but the earlier books tend to do that, tying up loose ends (and winning the House championship again, and again ...) and then sending Harry back to the Dursleys. Do you have anything specific in mind? --Philcha (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed for removal from plot summary

• Recent addition about Harry's imprisonment by the Dursleys.
  • Remove as it neither is essential to the coherence of the narrative nor supports the commentaries. --Philcha (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Remove, I agree. Malinaccier (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• "This book reveals that it begins in 1992: the cake for Nearly-Headless Nick's 500th deathday party bears the words "Sir Nicholas De Mimsy Porpington died 31st October, 1492".[2] I don't see how this is relevant to the plot or commentaries. Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Could move it into "Style and themes". Source: 1492, 1942, 1992: The Theme of Race in the Harry Potter Series (staff web site, Latrobe U.; Whited is a published commentator in children's literature, e.g. editor of The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon, University of Missouri Press, one contribution to this already cited; so the web page is WP:RS and I'm now citing it). The relationship to the real-world timeline is a perfectly valid scholarly question. Besides, if it's completely removed, someone else will add it again, probably w/o citation. The only way you might win this one is by policing it forever. --Philcha (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should get rid of it as somewhat cruftish. It's really not important to the article. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if re-adding gets too disruptive, I'll simply protect the article for a while. Malinaccier (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not worth the long term hassle of policing. It's a perfectly valid scholarly question, it has a WP:RS and it's brief. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The information is trivial to the plot as well as the commentary.陣内_Jinnai 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to take on the thankless task of removing re-insertions and discussing each removal from now to the end of time? Comparisons with real-world chronology are common enough in fantasy & science fiction, e.g. Star Wars' "long, long ago and far, far away" or the fact that most of Iain M. Banks' Culture novels are set out Middle Ages and Renaissance. --Philcha (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And it's just one sentence, compared with the lakes of ink spilt over the correlation of the Iliad to real-world chronology. Or is the issue somehow respectable when it relates to an ancient Greek poem but not when it relates to a modern young adults' fantasy series? --Philcha (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving it to the Themes section would be good. Or putting it in the lead and shortening it to something like "Set in 1992,[ref] Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets focuses on..." Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to "Themes". --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Lucius Malfoy bursts in, and Harry accuses him of slipping the diary into one of Ginny's books while all the pupils were shopping for school books. Malfoy replies, "Prove it."" This seems like a minor plot point. Kaguya-chan (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought before adding that, and concluded that: Lucius is a secretive but powerful factor in the plot, see also his coup against Dumbledore; despite his protestations of reform, Lucius is still committed to Voldemort; it becomes apparent as the books progress that Lucius is the nearest thing Voldemort has to a second-in-comand in Britain, see books from Goblet of Fire onwards. Rowling plotted the series before writing the first book, and IMO articles about the series have to present a coherent picture of the long-term story arc as well as of the events in each book. --Philcha (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it's somewhat important to the overall plot, it could be shortened to something like "It is implied that Lucius Malfoy secretly gave the diary to Ginny." And I think (I haven't read the series in a while, but) that Dumbledore and Harry have a conversation that it was Lucius who slipped the diary to Ginny. Or something like that. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the book and the film, just after Lucius bursts into the wrap-up chat between Harry & Dumbledore, Dobby gives Harry non-verbal hints behind Lucius' back, and Harry then accuses Lucius, who replies, "Prove it." Dumbledore then advises Lucius not to give any other of Voldemort's old school things. So "It is implied that Lucius Malfoy secretly gave the diary to Ginny" would be accurate - but IMO the current wording is livelier, and not too long. WP often gets terribly earnest, and needs lightening up from time. In the science articles I edit, if a source provides a vivid or humorous phrase, I use it (in quotes and attributed, of course). --Philcha (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it was Dobby. :) Okay, what about "Through nonverbal hints, Dobby implies that Lucius Malfoy secretly gave the diary to Ginny." Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good summary of how I've just described that incident. But in the context of the plot summary: it introduces Dobby, whom I'd cut out of the summary because he has no real causal impact on the outcome (except for implicting Lucius M); the accusation is unsubstantiated without Lucius' implied admission. --Philcha (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Style and themes

It was difficult to find material on style specific to Chamber rather than the series. However the last version I edited had some relevant material, which someone removed later. So do we retitle the section "Themes" or add at least some of the points about style? PS IMO the part about cliches would have to be slimmed down to e.g. "Although there have been complaints about frequnet use of clichés in the series[refs as per old version], in Edward Duffy's opinion Rowling uses clichés as material for humour. He cites two examples from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: Vernon Dursley is "as bad as his word" when he carries out a threat; and Dumbledore says, "only a true Gryffindor could have pulled that out of the hat", referring to Godric Gryffindor's sword, which Harry pulled out of the Sorting Hat (the italics are Duffy's).[Ref as per old version] --Philcha (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just retitle to "Themes" if that's alright. Malinaccier (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Most of the sources for style I've seen are about book 1 or the whole series, so not a tragic loss. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The plot section is long and overweighs the article. The plot detail in the lead seems inappropriate. The prose is rather choppy and tends to the trivial - "Rowling found it difficult to finish Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets because she was afraid it would not live up to the expectations raised by Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. After delivering the manuscript to Bloomsbury on schedule, she took it back for six weeks of revision." "First edition printings had several errors, which were fixed in subsequent reprints." There also appears to be some conflict over the plot. My suggestion would be that as this article is not currently in a state to be passed, and there is no agreement as to how to proceed, that the GA review is withdrawn as failed. The editors can sort it out among themselves and resubmit the article when it is ready (and stable). SilkTork *^YES! 23:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re the plot summary, it's the minimum I've been able to devise that gets the main characters to the end of the book - the reductions I've considered all seem to leave holes in the summary, which would reduce the quality of the article and invite later insertions that might be too verbose, etc. Commentators have mentioned the complexity of the plots in books 1 and 2, which they describe as "detective stories". If you can see reductions that don't leave holes in the causal chain that leads to the ending, please suggest them. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "The prose is rather choppy", could you please give examples, and preferably suggest alternatives for a few. IMO the target audience for this article is fairly average young adults rather than academics, so the prose should be simple. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you consider ""Rowling found it difficult to finish Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ..." trivial. It's the only book in the series for which I've found such a comment, which is significant in its own right, and a few cited sources comment on the difficulty of second books in general. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re "First edition printings had several errors ...", I've seen no similar comments about other books in the series. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"There also appears to be some conflict over the plot" is not an accurate summary of the situation. We're trying to work out some principles for articles on plot-intensive books. Without agreed principles, there's no good defence against later additions of fancruft and discussion of such items turns into shouting matches. If we can agree some principles here, we can apply them in later discussions and refer back to the GA review discussion. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, any argument about plot has been settled. Also, I don't understand what you mean regarding trivial or choppy information. Malinaccier (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

A shorter version of the plot

Title says all. :) I took pieces from the old and new plot summary, and shortened parts. Is this better? Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

When Harry arrives at school, sinister events occur, such as the attacks upon, and subsequent petrification of, ghosts and Muggle born students. Harry, Ron and Hermione are quickly exposed to a fifty-year-old mystery tied to the attacks. The novel delves into the history of Hogwarts and a legend revolving around the "Chamber of Secrets", the lair of an ancient evil creature, and introduces Lucius Malfoy, a former supporter of Voldemort who claims to have reformed.

Harry is shocked to learn that he can speak Parseltongue, the language of snakes; this rare ability is often equated with the dark arts. Because of this ability and that Harry is often seen at the scenes of the attacks, many students at Hogwarts believe that he is an evil wizard. While investigating the attacks, Harry comes across Moaning Myrtle, the ghost of a girl killed the last time the Chamber was opened, who now haunts the girls' toilet where she died. Myrtle shows Harry a blank, enchanted diary bearing the name "Tom Marvolo Riddle", which someone had thrown through her. After Harry writes in the diary, it communicates with him and shows him Hogwarts as it was fifty years ago, after Myrtle's death. There, a pupil named Tom Riddle blamed her death on Hagrid, later the school's gamekeeper and already devoted to keeping dangerous magical creatures as pets.

Unfortunately, the diary is later stolen, and he and Ron discover that Hermione has been petrified; however, she hold a note explaining that the creature is a basilisk, a huge serpent whose gaze kills those who meet its eyes directly and only petrifies those who look on it by means of a reflecting surface, such as water or a mirror. Because of the continuing attacks, Dumbledore is suspended as headmaster, and Cornelius Fudge, the Minister for Magic, takes Hagrid to the wizard prison as a precaution. After Ron's younger sister, Ginny Weasley, is taken into the Chamber, he and Harry realize that the entrance to the Chamber is in Myrtle's bathroom; they rush to their Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher, the vain and boastful Gilderoy Lockhart, to tell him. Lockhart reveals that he is a fraud who took credit for the accomplishments of others and attempts to erase the boys' memories. Disarming Lockhart, they walk to Moaning Myrtle's bathroom, where Harry opens the passage to the Chamber of Secrets. After they are below the school, Lockhart attempts again to wipe the boys' memories; the spell backfires on him and collapses part of the tunnel, separating Harry from Ron and Lockhart. Harry then reaches the Chamber, where Ginny lies unconscious beside the diary.

Tom Riddle manifests and reveals himself to be a younger Voldemort stored within the diary; he charmed Ginny by appearing sympathetic to her adolescent hopes and fears that she wrote about in the diary, eventually possessing and using her to open the Chamber. Upon realizing that she was responsible for the attacks, Ginny threw the diary away and subsequently, it came into Harry's possession. Harry defeats the basilisk with help from Dumbledore's pet phoenix, Fawkes, and a magnificent sword that he pulls out from the Sorting Hat that Fawkes brings. Although one of the basilisk's fangs pierce Harry, he uses it to destroy the diary and Fawkes heals him. Fawkes later airlifts all four out of the tunnels. Harry tells the now reinstated Dumbledore about what just occurred, and Dumbledore revokes his threat to expel the boys if they broke more rules, rewarding them instead. Harry mentions his earlier fears that he was the Heir of Slytherin, and Dumbledore says that Harry chose Gryffindor House, and only a true Gryffindor could have used Godric Gryffindor's sword to kill the basilisk. Lucius Malfoy bursts in, and Harry accuses him of slipping the diary into one of Ginny's books while the pupils were shopping for school books. Malfoy replies, "Prove it." The novel ends with all of the basilisk's petrified victims being revived by a potion, the preparation of which has taken a few months.

	Words	Chars, incl spaces
Previous version	974	5748
Yours, above	670	3349
New version	776	3791

Hi, Kaguya-chan, you've given me some ideas, which I've tried out in a new version - thanks!

A little comparison (done w MS Word, so won't be exactly the same as produced by WP's tools)

Differences from yours:

• Introduced "heir of Slytherin" as this appears in the wrap-up.
• Skips Parseltongue as I think the pupils' suspicions of Harry are not part of the core chain.
• Hagrid's age. Readers who know the books will know Hagrid is the gamekeeper, but will need remind that Hagrid was a boy in this episode.
• Hermione's deduction of basilisk's use of sewers - otherwise no explanation for the entrance in Myrtle's toilet and why the route to the Chamber is underground. Gotta give her credit for cracking the case and planning what do if she met the basilisk (the note & the hand mirror) - what a girl!
• How Lockhart unwillingly involved.
• One fang broke off!
• Special Awards for Services to the School - explains why Dumbledore rewarded them instead of punishing them.

So, what do you think? --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The plot is definitely getting shorter. Nice work. :)

• "Soon after the start of Harry's second session at Hogwarts, messages on the walls of the corridors say that the Chamber of Secrets has been re-opened and that the "Heir of Slytherin" would kill all pupils whose parents are not both magical – which includes Hermione, whose parents are both Muggles." can be shortened to "Soon after the start of Harry's second session at Hogwarts, messages on the walls of the corridors say that the Chamber of Secrets has been re-opened and that the "Heir of Slytherin" would kill all pupils whose parents are not both magical – which includes Hermione." We already know that Hermione must have non magicial parents to be included, so that doesn't need to be restated.

Elementary, my dear Kaguya-chan! Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Riddle learned from Ginny who Harry was and about his own deeds as Voldemort, the evil wizard who started a terrible war and tried to kill Harry when the boy was only one year old." can be shortened to "Riddle learned from Ginny who Harry is and about his own deeds as Voldemort." The background explains who Voldemort is.

Another "doh!" moment. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• "While Ron attempts to tunnel through the rubble, Harry enters a long chamber, where Ginny lies beside the diary at the far end." can be "While Ron attempts to tunnel through the rubble, Harry enters the Chamber of Secrets, where Ginny lies beside the diary at the far end." since we already know that that must be the Chamber of Secres and not some random chamber under the school.

Not sure I understand your reasoning, but "enters the Chamber of Secrets" is clearer. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• As Riddle gloats over the dying Harry, Fawkes cures him. Harry stabs the diary with the broken fang, and Riddle screams and vanishes.[1]" seems like a lot of detail. What about "Fawkes heals Harry, who then uses the broken fang to destroy the diary and Riddle."

Riddle certainly gloats. It's the Achilles heel of all heemelodramatic villains, from the Bond movies to Terry Pratchett (who uses it as a joke, of course). If Riddle had done the obvious "Avada Kedavra!", game over. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent suggestions, I've implememented all except the last - we've gotta let Riddle/Voldemort be a true villian. --Philcha (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Okay, the plot's not getting any shorter, so I think we can leave it alone. Now for the lead. I really don't think that there needs to be a whole paragraph about the plot. Maybe a sentence or two explaining that this is Harry's second year, mysterious attacks are occuring, and the Chamber of Secrets is open. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Alright, I've shortened the plot in the lead. Should be good now. Malinaccier (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, Malinaccier. --Philcha (talk) 06:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Malinaccier. :) However, "first published in 1998" can be moved to the second paragraph (and please add the publisher). Like in the lead of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Okay three tiny last concerns:

• This seems like original research :"Harry and Ron show little regard for rules, and Dumbledore endorses their actions because thay saved the school."

Naughty, naughty! ""Harry and Ron show little regard for rules ..." is in the lead. The main text in "Themes" has a ref. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bit of overlinking (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is wikilinked four times)

Mostly in "Publication ...", which I've cleaned up. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lastly, if you are going to keep the comparison with real-world chronology, then could you replace the ref with one not from the book? Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Added Whited 2006. --Philcha (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's all of my concerns addressed. I'll pass the article. Congratulations and keep up the good work. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)