Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry Potter fandom/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry Potter fandom[edit]

Don't be alarmed -- I know, you see "Harry Potter" and "fandom" come together and you immediately think "cruft." Please pass these thoughts aside as you look over this article -- it was just passed as a GA and the reviewer suggested it would make an excellent FA. I want to see how far away from that we are. Best, Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Awadewit[edit]

I think that this is a good start on a very disparate topic. You have done an excellent job in keeping the length of the article in check. Here are my suggestions as you revise the article in your efforts to achieve FA.

  • You need to expand the lead so that it summarizes, in three or four paragraphs, the main contents of the article. WP:LEAD
  • Perhaps this was just an oversight, but when you use "not only," the rules of English grammar require that you use "but also."
Fans of the series not only interact online in Internet forums, but meet at fan conventions and parties held for the release of each book and film.
Studies on the fandom have shown that the series is not only for children, but that adults are fans as well.
  • I would suggest that you submit this article to the League of Copyeditors. There are awkward sentences, poor diction, incorrect grammar and spelling mistakes that need attention. There is also a lot of repetition in the article.
Ex: The fandom community consists of a wide variety of media, including web sites, fan fiction, podcasts, fan art and songvids, and a distinct genre of music. - Can there be a community of media? This sentence is awkwardly phrased.
  • I'll work on reconstructing this sentence.
Ex: In 2005, Entertainment Weekly listed the midnight release of Goblet of Fire as one of the top moments in entertainment of the previous 25 years. - "top" is colloquial; "entertainment" is too vague
Ex: In the United States, the book's initial run printed 3.8 million copies - runs don't print
Ex: Despite the hunger that the books' publications satisfy - what does this mean? what hunger?
Ex: While explaining the use of the word " 'ship " is appropriate, the article itself should not employ it nor words such as "item." They are too colloquial for an encyclopedia.
Ex: romance among characters is a theme- Romances are not generally themes, they are plot elements.
    • Sorry, would you mind pointing out the spelling mistakes? I can understand the awkward sentences and diction, and the grammar as you mentioned above, but from many rereads I certainly haven't found anything misspelled. I'll submit the article to the LoCE when the peer review finishes, thank you. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ex: emphasise - article is written in American English, so this should be "emphasize"
Aha, I'll take a look at that. Thanks.
  • Incredibly, 6.9 million of those copies were sold in the U.S. within the first 24 hours of its release - some FAC reviewers will jump on you for the "incredibly" - it could be construed as POV
  • I would remove the paragraph about The Devil Wears Prada - it is not relevant. You have proved your point.
    • I don't know about this. I think this is an excellent (and brief) example of how the series has notably been portrayed in pop culture, without having one of those pesky "In pop culture" sections, because it fits here. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why don't you try reducing it, then? Right now, it has undue prominence compared to other topics. At most it deserves a sentence.
        • Shortened it.
  • The first site to receive the award was Immeritus - why is the website not linked?
    • As in wikilinked? There's no article about it. (The external link is in the appropriate section, though, if that's what you mean.) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I mean linked to the website itself within the article. That way, readers who want to see what sites won the awards can easily click as they are reading.
        • Well, if you take a look at Talk:Harry Potter fandom#Conversation conclusion (and the latest talk page archive), there was a large discussion on the inclusion of certain sites in the "external links" section. We decided that, so as to cut down on listing random fan sites, only sites mentioned in the article would have links, and those would appear in the EL section. I don't think inline external links look very professional, [1] anyway.
          • I understand that problem. I'm giving you another perspective. As a reader, I wanted to immediately click on that website to see what received an award. But I had to scroll down to the bottom of the page. 15:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Godric's Hollow; strangely, the site's domain name is occupied by advertisers and its content is lost, and there is no further record on Rowling's site that Godric's Hollow received the award. - there should be a record of the website in the wayback machine [2]
    • Okey dokes, you can find it here, but where/how should I put this into the article? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can link to it using the note format you used or piping within the article.
  • It would be best to turn the list of websites award the prize into a prose paragraph.
  • What is the comparison in numbers between Potter fan fiction and Trek fan fiction? I would think that Trek would still reign supreme. Your source for Potter having the most fan fiction is a student newspaper - this is not the most reliable source.
  • The Harry/Hermione relationship incident seems to be covered in a little too much detail compared to the other sections.
    • This was one of the most newsworthy events in the fandom. I understand it is slightly long, but I've tried to keep it as short as possible, and it certainly shows how much fans are affected by the series. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you could make the description of the entire event more concise by working on the writing, then.
  • Though match rules and style of play vary among fandom events, they are generally kept as close as possible to the sport envisioned by Rowling, though without brooms. - do you really need to say "without brooms" - we all know flying is impossible
    • I think the point of the sentence is that they don't even put brooms between their legs to simulate the HP characters, brooms are just completely out. However, I couldn't think of a good way to say this, so I just took it out completely. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the information in "Roleplaying games" could be expanded for those unfamiliar both with roleplaying games and Potter (such as "house cup").
  • Also, I noticed that almost all of your sources come from newspapers or websites. I would urge you to acquire some scholarly sources as well. Newspapers and websites can establish the existence of a fandom to an extent, but scholarly sources will analyze it for you - they interpret fandom for you, tell you what it means in a social, cultural and political context. Much has been published on Harry Potter and Harry Potter fandom. You can begin with Google Scholar and then use something like EBSCO or the MLA Bibliography (you would need a library for those as they are by subscription only). WP:CITE recommends that articles be written using scholarly sources as much as possible. Awadewit 10:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you so much for all of your suggestions! I took care of most of the minor ones, responded to some I had questions about, and will take care of the more important ones, especially finding scholarly sources, when I get a bit more time. Thanks again. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Small point. I don't think that it is a good idea to strike out reviewers' comments yourself. It is altering their comments, which is frowned upon at wikipedia, as you know. A better way to keep track of your progress is to check things off with  Done. Awadewit 05:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry! I had seen previous reviews done using strike out, and I certainly don't have the intentions to change your comments! I simply think it's an easier method of seeing which comments have not been addressed yet, more so than {{done}}. But if you'd rather me continue with {{done}}, I can do that. Sorry, once again! --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920's review[edit]

  • Ditto about the lead.
  • Your images need to alternate, not congregate on one side.
  • There are a few very short paragraphs that could do with expanding or merging.
  • Some of the references are not formatted correctly (missing authors, mostly).
    • I think that's the only thing, and that's only when a page's author isn't listed, or if it comes from Leaky, or MN, mostly, where I didn't think it very relevant to write "Melissa Anelli" or "Andrew Sims," etc. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree. I'll look through the references myself and see what I meant by that, as I've forgotten what I was referring to. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just went back through and checked each one. The BBC and CNN don't list author names, and I decided to throw in all the Melissa Anellis and Andrew Simses anyway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal note, I would deeply appreciate it if you could get Sirius/Remus in, theirloveissocanon (He loves Tonks, my arse - rebound much?).
  • Ditto about the scholarly sources, I once found an entire MA thesis on fanfiction in Harry Potter, it's somewhere on the Internet and I'm sure there is more on Harry Potter generally. There are entire websites with banks of scholarly works on Buffy, I'm sure there is one similar for Harry Potter.
    • Mind pointing me to that thesis? Sounds extremely helpful. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • While there are indeed many MA theses and PhD dissertations on this topic (I know of one on just Potter slash fiction), usually one does not use theses and dissertations unless there are no other sources available. In this case, that is not true. There is published scholarly material on Potter fandom. Awadewit 06:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put in more about what happens at the conventions. Was anyone notable there?
  • I know who Immeritus is about, most readers don't. Please clarify.
  • How do other people feel about fanfic about their characters? Surely Emma, Rupert and Daniel have all read fanfic about themselves?
    • If they have, they certainly haven't mentioned it in public, or what their reactions to it are. And this comes from two years of steady fan site RSS feed bookmarking. :) --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, Ok then. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That fantasy template is annoying and should be removed.
    • I didn't just want to remove it, as the article is actually linked from the template and that would be odd to do so without consensus. So on the template's talk page I brought up whether anybody else was for removing the "fantasy subculture" section.

I love this article almost as much as I love the fandom, but it needs a bit of work to make FA. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Ok:[reply]

  • "For that release, 9000 FedEx trucks were used with no other purpose than to deliver the book. Together, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble presold more than 700,000 copies of the book." is unreferenced.
    • Erm, well, it is, just that the sentence right after that also comes from the same source, so it's three sentences tied together from one ref. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost none of the roleplaying section has any references.

I think this article is nicely shaping up. If you cover the stuff listed by me and the chap above you've not yet done or explained away, this will be a very nice FA. Good luck! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harry_Potter_fandom/archive1&oldid=1051927370"