Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHarry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
May 23, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 19, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Emma Watson considered quitting the Harry Potter film series, but later returned to star in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince?
Current status: Good article

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page formatting looks weird[edit]

82.15.100.19 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my small correction.[edit]

Is it okay? Stephenfryfan (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

apparently it wasn't[1]
generally not a good idea to make any changes to quoted text. small changes of CASE don't normally require discussion. -- 109.76.196.168 (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pamzeis (talk · contribs) 01:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not gonna miss the chance to review this!!! Comments will hopefully come by 27 March... Pamzeis (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, thanks for picking up this review! Kpddg (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, when will you be starting the review? Thanks, Kpddg (talk • contribs) 01:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit busier than I expected. Hopefully tomorrow, but if no comments appear by then, then it'll probably be Saturday. Pamzeis (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine Kpddg (talk • contribs) 02:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed

Prose[edit]

  • Add a comma after "best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger"
    •  Comment: I think the sentence would be fine without a comma there?
  • The second and paragraphs of the lead are confusing. The second goes from production (September 2007) to release to budget and back to release; the third goes to the premiere (which happened before release), then repeats information about the release.
  • Third paragraph's last few sentences are also confusing: the second-last talks about its gross positions during its run, while the last talks about the positions after its run... consistency?
    • Not sure. I did not understand what exactly should be done? These two sentences seem to be in order.
      • My issue is that it is confusing when one talks about how it became the eight highest-grossing film when it was in cinemas (it isn't anymore), while one talks about it after (i.e. it was... the third, I think, highest-grossing Potter film at the time of its release)
        •  Done here? Provided a clarification.
  • score, and a fine story — remove "a fine"
  • 82nd Academy Awards for Best Cinematography — comma after this bit
    •  Done: Comma added here
  • chooses his son Draco Malfoy to — commas around Draco Malfoy
    •  Comment: Are you sure commas would be needed here?
  • Draco's mother Narcissa and — commas around Narcissa
  • allays their suspicions by — what suspicions?
    • Question? Would this be fine?
      • I'll take a look during my second look
  • Then at the — comma after then
  • and Narcissa Malfoy and follow — comma after Malfoy
  • Greyback attack and destroy — comma after attack
    •  Comment: The sentence seems consistent without a comma.
  • Draco hesitates, however Snape — Draco hesitates; Snape, however,
  • The bulleted cast list—other than Pettigrew—should not have full stops, as there are no full sentences
    •  Done here; reworded Pettigrew's sentence also so that full-stop is not needed to maintain consistency
  • Phoenix while Natalia — comma after Phoenix
  • Ron’s siblings, Fred and — no comma
  • Slytherin students, Vincent — ditto
  • Gryffindor students, Lavender Brown — ditto ditto
  • Cormac McLaggen while — comma before while
  • Ravenclaw, Marcus Belby — no comma
  • Any reason why McCory and Legeno are in a separate paragraph?
    •  Done here. Perhaps they were in different paras as they played opposite roles in the film. But a separate para for this is nevertheless not needed.
  • Before David Yates was officially chosen to direct the film — unneeded; we learn Yates directed it with more context later
    •  Comment: The next mention about Yates in this paragraph is an exerpt from an interview. Since the above phrase states that he is director, I feel that it should be kept.
  • approached for this one — feels clumsy
    • Question? Is this better?
      • I'll take a look during my second look
  • The quote in the second paragraph of #Development takes up, like, 90% of the paragraph. It probably should be paraphrased to avoid over quoting... and it's kinda hard to follow what Yates is saying...
    •  Feedback required Is this okay?
      • I'll take a look during my second look
  • Yates described Half-Blood Prince as being "a cross between the chills of Prisoner of Azkaban and the fantastical adventure of Goblet of Fire." — this either needs to be expanded upon or removed, because it tells us nothing...
    •  Comment: I don't think it can be expanded upon, but should it be removed?
      • Probably? I just feel like it's unnecessary if there's nothing else to add
  • Hermione.[20][21]Nicholas — missing space
  • recurred in all scores — what scores?
    •  Done: Changed 'scores' to 'films'
  • Also retained were — awkward wording
  • Can development and casting be merged? There doesn't seem to be anything that warrants them being separate and both sections feel rather short and choppy at the moment...
    •  Comment: Shall I merge it under 'Development and Casting'?
      • That would be ideal (with casting uncapitalised per MOS:HEAD)
  • According to Watson's article, all three actors were hesitant to sign on for the last films, not just her. Her and Radcliffe's articles also go more in-depth into why they were hesitant, etc. Any chance that could be incorporated into this article?
    •  Comment: While the article does state that all three were hesitant to continue, I can't find a reliable source for them.
      • News.com.au, NY Times, Newsweek and MTV (the sources cited in Watson and Radcliffe's articles) are reliable?
      •  Done [2]. Only the newsweek one seems to be working
  • the role but Riddle — comma after role
  • Percy Weasley respectively — comma before respectively
  • sets, noticeably the interior — what is noticeably supposed to mean here?
  • of Ireland; the only location — replace the semi-colon with a comma
  • film series. [40][41]The interior — extra space, missing space?
    •  Done: Extra space removed here
  • Craig noted "Apart — either a comma, colon or "that" is needed before noted
    •  Done: Wording changed here
  • Grint did not begin until November 2007, Watson did not begin until December 2007, Rickman and Leung until January 2008, and Bonham Carter until February 2008. — can this be reworded or something? It feels kinda wrong to me
    •  Comment: Is this fine?
      • I will take a look during my second look

More to come...

@Pamzeis, I have made most of the changes you pointed out, but need some help on others. Could you clarify where I have some doubt? Kpddg (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis? Kpddg (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis, I have made most of the changes, but need clarification on some. Could you respond? Kpddg (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yates didn't want — informal contractions
  • Half-Blood Prince is the only film in the series to be nominated for the Best Cinematography accolade ... — this can be moved to accolades
  • interview with the Academy — if I wasn't familiar with film, I would have no idea who "the Academy" was
  • The second paragraph of #Cinematography is, again, like, 90% quotation
  • To avoid having to say it more, paragraphs with lots of quotations are not desirable. The problem is, this causes a potential copyright violation (see WP:OVERQUOTING for more info). This really needs reduction. While it's not that much from each article, it just feels excessive because a lot of paragraphs consist of mostly just quotation(s)
  • so we were constantly trying to figure out how not to make these dead people coming up look like zombies. A lot of it came down to their movement – they don't move fast, but they don't move really slow or groan and moan. We ended up going with a very realistic style. — why is this in first person? Also, contractions should be removed
    •  Comment: Because this a quotation
  • About Dumbledore's ring of fire — since the plot doesn't mention it, what is "Dumbledore's ring of fire"?
    •  Done here. Added in the plot.
  • sprayed propane and then lit it — I'm findin' this hard to follow... this probably needs expansion upon
    •  Done Made it more clear here
    •  Done here
  • finding a faster way to conjure flames. — ...did he find one? If so, what was it?
    •  Done Made it more clear here (reorder)
  • created by Double Negative — since it doesn't have an article, what is Double Negative? Some context would be appreciated
    •  Done linked to respective article here
  • Also, is there any particular reason #Visual effects is arranged this way? Plot-wise, it's a bit confusing since it goes from the inferi (second, plot-wise) to the fire (third, plot-wise) to the opening scene and pensieve (first, plot-wise)
    •  Done Re-ordered here
  • The budget section seems very short and choppy, and kind of breaks up the flow of #Production. Maybe merge it development or box office?
    •  Done Merged with 'Box office'
  • film series. [66] — extra space
  • While at the middle of the series in length — ???
    •  Done Bettered here
  • released later. [80]The US — extra space, missin' space
  • A 15-second teaser for the film was shown alongside the IMAX release of The Dark Knight. — is there anything significant about this showing specifically? I'm not familiar with how cinema was back then, but nowadays, this kind of stuff happens a lot...
    •  Comment: It think its because it was the first IMAX trailer?
  • Harry Potter marathon which — Harry Potter marathon, which
  • Warner Bros and MSN ran an online Order of the Phoenix quiz, with the prize being a walk-on part in the Half-Blood Prince. — wouldn't this fit better in a production section? I don't see how it is marketing for the film...
  • March six character — comma after March
  • An English version of the international trailer — isn't it already in English? I'm confused...
    •  Done: Reworded here
  • Weekly which had — comma after Weekly
    •  Done
  • November,[106] but was not — comma unneeded
    •  Done
  • Advance ticket sales on Fandango.com for Half-Blood Prince surpassed advance ticket sales for Transformers 2 at the same point in sale cycles. It is also in MovieTickets.com's top 25 advance sellers of all time.[107] — can this be moved to #Box office? I think it fits better there
    •  Done
  • 2 hours 33 minutes and 28 — comma after hours
    •  Done
  • released on Blu-ray with a digital copy and DVD — was Blu-ray released as the digital copy and DVD or separately? Kinda ambiguous at the moment
  • mini theme park which — comma after park
    •  Done
  • Florida. [113]Also included are deleted — can ya guess?
  • Also included are deleted scenes comprising 8 scenes with a running length of 6 minutes and 31 seconds — a bit awkward and repetitive
    •  Done Reworded here
  • The Blu-ray and DVD released in India, the Philippines, South Africa, Czech Republic and Israel on 16 November 2009, making them the first countries to get the Half Blood Prince DVD release before the UK and the US. — firstly, this sentence is missing a "was". Secondly, the first countries? Were there more? I find this wording quite confusing. And thirdly, "Half Blood Prince" is missing a hyphen
  • November. [117]The Blu-ray — again
  • North America includes a digital → North America include a digital

 Done here

  • DVD of the year with an — comma after year
  • Blu-ray markets widely beating — comma after markets

 Done here

  • Does the final paragraph of #Home media need to be separated (MOS:BODY)
  • cinemas; The Twilight Saga: New Moon bested this with $26.3 million — when did this happen?
    •  Done Clarified here
  • on its way to $139.7 — on what's way?
    •  Done removed detailed info about prev film
  • office run was over on — office run finished
  • until The Twilight Saga: Eclipse surpassed — when?
  • this record for two years — worldwide or US?
  • South Africa the film opened — comma before the
    •  Done all copyedits in this section done here
  • one position grossing $789,176 — comma after position
    •  Done
  • grossing $789,176,[133] it maintained — comma splice
    •  Done
  • week, too, with a total — can too be deleted? It makes the flow rather awkward
    •  Done
  • In Australia, as in most of the world, the film broke records with a debut of $11,492,142 and opening at number one, maintaining a second week at number one with a total of $5,278,096 (down 54%), and grossing a total of $24,208,243. — I'm finding this pretty hard to follow. It probably needs a split and a bit of a reword
    •  Done
  • from the UK tabloid Devin Faraci of Chud.com — this humorously implies that Faraci is the UK tabloid
  • best Harry Potter film → best Harry Potter film
  • out of 5 stars rating — delete rating
  • production design, improved acting — "improved acting" does not tell us much... in comparison to what? By all of the cast or only certain members?
  • noted that the film's — the bit which follows this is an opinion, but the use of "noted" implies a fact...
  • but in the second half the film finds better footing — comma after half
  • and goes on to say — tense should be consistent; otherwise, it feels awkward
  • largely due to the large number — a tad repetitive
  • Rickman.[147]Screen Daily commented — space after the ref
  • experience ", but praised — extra space present before the quotation mark
  • Margaret Pomeranz, the co-host of the television show, gave the film 3 out of 5 stars — her rating is meaningless if you don't provide further context
    •  Done: Removed here
  • At the time of its release, Rowling stated that Half-Blood Prince was her "favourite one" of the six film adaptations.[70] Radcliffe was critical of his own performance in the film, stating in an interview in 2014 that he was "just not very good in it", and calling it "hard to watch".[150][151] — since Rowling and Radcliffe are not critics, their opinions seem rather trivial
    •  Comment: Since they play primary roles in this series, I do not think that their opinions should be removed, but maybe moved elsewhere, if you feel so. What is your opinion?
  • To be completely honest, the critical response section seems rather messy. Each review is just... there... there's no apparent way of organising them and quotes are used very frequently. If you haven't read it already, WP:RECEPTION is an especially useful essay for this
    •  Comment: Is this better?

Sources[edit]

  • What makes the following sources reliable:
    • JewReview.net
      • Another ref added alongside
    • Showbiz Cheat Sheet
    • Classicalexburns
    • Ugo
      • Added one more alongside it
    • The Writing Studio
      • Replaced
    • Rick Steves
      • Replaced
    • Rope of Silicon
    • First Showing
      • Could not find a reliable source, so removed the corresponding statement. Replaced in the other instance.
    • MuggleNet – isn't that a fan site?
      • Sorry, but I'm not able to find it!
    • Home Media Magazine
      • Removed one instance, but could not find any other citation for the other mention
    • ScreenCrave
      • There is another citation alongside it
    • Crushable
      • Removed the sentence, as no source is found
    • The HD Room
    • Ajax World
    • IMDb
      • All instances of imdb have either been replaced, or refs added alongside
        • I'll clarify that Box Office Mojo is just owned by IMDb, it's not IMDb itself. Box Office Mojo is one of the most reliable sources for box office. —El Millo (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok, I did not know that. Thanks for restoring the ones I had removed. Kpddg (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can a more... recent source be provided for the "fastest to reach the $350 million mark in worldwide box office of all time" claim? A decade-old source is not the best for a claim that is likely to become outdated
    • It is not the fastest anymore, so shall I remove it?

Other[edit]

  • Can the citations be moved out of the lead? None of them seem to support controversial claims that need to be updated
    •  Done here. All statements are sourced later in the article.
  • one day short of the fourth anniversary of the corresponding novel's release — is this really significant enough to be in the lede?
    •  Done here. I removed the sentence as I could not find a source for it.
  • with praise for Yates's direction, the performances, Delbonnel's cinematography, Nicholas Hooper's musical score, and a fine story — #Critical response says it was praised for its funniness, thrill, visuals and emotion...
    •  Comment: The critical response section has various views. But I could not find a mention of Yates's direction, so I removed that. Do you have any particular wording in mind?
      • I don't wanna impose any particular wording but my problem is, it's not explicitly stated or sourced that what's in the lede is what was praised, making it a possible violation of WP:SYNTH. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus, meanwhile, tells us what most critics think of it.
  • I'm not super fussed about this, but why do some awards have "[Number] X Awards", some "X Awards" and some [Year] X Awards"? Consistency would be appreciated
  • There is a "dubious" tag on the Teen Vogue cite and others
    •  Done All dubious sources have been taken care of

I have added all my comments. Article is now  On hold. Apologies for my delay... Please take as long as you want to resolve my comments. Pamzeis (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, I have responded to the points you have raised till now. Kpddg (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Second look[edit]

Version reviewed

  • written by Steve Kloves and produced by David Heyman and David — comma after Kloves
    •  Done
  • all time and 2009's second-highest-grossing film (behind Avatar). It is the fifth-highest-grossing film in the franchise — that's not- that's not my concern. My concern is that one is at the time and one is of all time.
    •  Done
  • chooses his son Draco Malfoy to carry — commas around "Draco Malfoy", because, if I recall correctly, Lucius only has one son
    •  Done
  • In Diagon Alley, they visit Fred and George Weasley's new joke shop. — this seems rather trivial...
  • My concerns with overquotation and an unclear statement in the second paragraph of #Development and casting don't seem to have been resolved
  • Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs, as they feel very choppy within the text (MOS:BODY)
  • Other cast members started much later: Grint did not begin until November 2007, Watson started in December 2007 — comma splice
    •  Done
  • to the cave scene Delbonnel — comma after scene
    •  Done
  • There's too much quote in the second paragraph of #Visual effects and there's at least one missing quote mark
  • the Gaunts because they felt — comma after Gaunts
    •  Done
  • without it there was too — comma after it
  • If the Dark Night preview was the first, it should probably be noted
  • which took place 5–7 December — missing word?
    •  Done
  • Ellen claim has a cn tag
    •  Done
  • 2009, at MTV Awards → 2009, at the MTV Awards
    •  Done
  • 2 hours 33 minutes — comma after hours
    •  Done
  • 4,468 cinemas in 2010) ; — extra space?
    •  Done
  • reach the $350 million mark in worldwide box office of all time — of all time? Wouldn't a newer film have beat it by now?
  • the third most successful — hyphen between third and most?
    •  Done
  • number one → number-one (all instances when used as adjective)
  • He however praised the → He, however, praised the
    •  Done
  • If you wanna keep Rowling and Radcliffe's opinions, I'd suggest creating a section called "Impact" or "Aftermath". Keep in mind that it'll have to be longer than it is now. See Total Recall (1990 film)#Legacy and Total Recall (1990 film)#Aftermath for (an) example(s)
    •  Comment: I'm not able to find enough content to justify a separate section....so shall I remove it then?
      • My two (whatever currency)? Yes
  • In the table, we've still got some... (weird?) formatting. There's "82nd Academy Awards" and "SFX Awards", for example.
    •  Comment: So just to confirm, you want the year/number to be written before each respective award?
      • No... I just want it to be consistent, i.e. say "Academy Awards" instead of "82nd Awards" to be consistent with "SFX Awards" or "[Number]st SFX Award" to be consistent with others. Any formatting is fine as long as it is consistent.

A few sources I'm iffy on:

  • WP:IMDB; the Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards are sourced to it
    • I added another ref alongside
      • Can IMDb be removed entirely? It's not an appropriate source for this
        • Ok
  • Squarespace
    • checkY Replaced
  • Zimbio
    • The only other sources I can find apart from zimbio are this and this....
      • The two alts are not RSes... any evidence of an editorial or just paid staff in general at Zimbio?
        • I don't think it is a proper editorial
  • The Leaky Cauldron
    •  Done

There's my second look... Pamzeis (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, I have made most corrections. Kpddg (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Third look[edit]

  • It is the fifth-highest-grossing film in the franchise — um... OK... soooooooo... maybe just remove it because it's also the third-lowest-grossing film in the series... so..... being the fifth-highest isn't really significant....
  • The pair meets with Death → The pair meet with Death
  • year-old Tom Riddle, with Frank Dillane playing 16-year-old young version of Lord Voldemort — maybe some consistency between Riddle / Voldy would be helpful
  • realistic style."" He also noted — extra quote mark (also, side note, the extra quote mark hurts my eyes )
  • On Dumbledore's ring of fire to combat the Inferi, he added, "We did a lot of research on molten volcanoes, which have a lot of heat going on but no actual flames, and collected a bunch of other references, including flares that burn underwater, and showed them to the Potter folks. The visual effects team emulated these six fire parameters: heat ripples, smoke, buoyancy, viscosity, opacity, and brightness. Since the whole fire scene was very time-consuming, computer graphics artist Chris Horvath spent eight months finding a faster way to conjure flames." — ...too much quote
  • without it there was — comma after it
  • A 15-second teaser, the first for the film, was shown — the way this is written is kinda awkward and confusing...
  • The film was released in the United Kingdom, United States, France, Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand, India, Brazil, Spain, Mexico and Japan on 15 July 2009. — the list is kinda long-winded... I doubt anyone would read the whole thing... maybe say several countries or something and add an {{efn}} note to specify which (e.g. The film was released in several countries on 15 July 2009.[a])
    •  Done
  • The Blu-ray and DVD includes an 11-minute — The Blu-ray and DVD include an 11-minute
  • This also includes deleted — what is "this"?
    •  Done It refers to both the Blueray and DVD, so I changed it to these
  • box office run the total ticket — comma after run

Yay! I finally did this in a timely manner! Pamzeis (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis, I have made all the required corrections here. Kpddg (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ These countries were Sweden, Australia, Canada and whatever
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Fourth look[edit]

  • Harry reunites with best friends → Harry reunites with his best friends
  • the werewolf Fenrir Greyback at — comma after Greyback
  • position before Severus Snape. — remove the full stop
  • that a lot of — unencyclopaedic wording
  • 15-secons, was — typo?
  • Tom Riddle's orphanage was released — comma before was
  • also includes deleted scenes — include
  • Zimbio is still cited
    • I removed the reference along with the corresponding statement, as no other source can be found
  • What makes crawlerscastingcalls.com a reliable source?
    •  Question: Where exactly is this website?
  • What makes qa-faq.com an RS?
    • checkY removed here, another citation is there alongside
  • The Writing Studio is still cited
    • This and emol source a quote from aninterview. Not able to find an RS...
      Just being an interview does not make something reliable. Like magazine and newspaper articles, they can be fabricated.
  • What makes emol.org a reliable source?
  • What makes Lochaber News an RS?
  • What makes iesb.net a reliable source?
    •  Question: I'm not able to find this as well
  • What makes Wiltshire Times a reliable source?
  • What makes This is Local London a reliable source?
  • What makes Gloucestershire on Screen an RS?
  • What makes The Citizen a reliable source?
  • What makes IndieLondon a reliable source?
    •  Comment: There seems to be no other reliable source, so I'll remove the statement..
      • Not done yet...
  • Post Magazine?
  • Noble PR?
  • Trailer Addict?
  • HPANA?
  • Scifiwire?
  • The lead mentions the film was once the eight-highest grossing film of all time but the body doesn't
  • The last paragraph of #Critical response is uncited

So close! Pamzeis (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis, I've replied to all the points raised. Kpddg (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Fifth look[edit]

  • Check above for comments regarding sources

Just that and we're done! Pamzeis (talk) 07:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis, I'm done! Kpddg (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Sixth look[edit]

I... I think that's a  pass from me! Probably my longest GA review ever. Pamzeis (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pamzeis for this review! The article has improved a lot!! Kpddg (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Kpddg (talk). Self-nominated at 07:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is netural, meets the required length, and is sufficiently referenced (personally I'd prefer to see more content in GAs like this, since I know the information is out there, but I suppose that's more for FAs). Promoted to GA on 23 May, the same day as this nomination. Hooks are interesting, succinct, and reliably sourced—the first one is definitely the most interesting, followed by ALT2 then ALT1. Nominator is exempt from QPQ. Nothing else needed—this is good to go! – Rhain ☔ 06:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Kpddg (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_(film)&oldid=1207200094"