Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Emma Watson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emma Watson[edit]

As a representative of the Harry Potter WikiProject, I feel that this article meets all of our criteria for featured article status. As a featured article needs to meet all the required standards of all appropriate WikiProjects, I would appreciate any comments from the Biography WikiProject as to what, if anything, need be done from your perspective before it braves FAC. Happy-melon 13:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Melty girl[edit]

This review was discussed, expanded and responded to at Wikipedia:Peer review/Emma Watson. (Melty girl 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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.
  • 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.

Onto organization within the sections:

  • 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.
  • Minor edit: I would remove the periods that follow the dates in the Filmography box. Those dates are not sentences.

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)[reply]