The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 18:12, 25 August 2007.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows[edit]

It is an excellent article, has many, many, many great citaions, great prose and an overall amazing job. It definitely deserves to be in the running at the very least for a FA.  Bella Swan_(Talk!) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is a fantastic article as it is, but I have serious concerns since the book has not been out long enough. The critical reception and sales sections stand to undergo major changes pending future developments. Could we wait a few months before rushing this to FA? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fixes needed, completely unformatted references, so reliability of sources can't be judged without clicking each ref. Please see WP:CITE/ES; all sources need a publisher, websources need a last access date, and author and publication date should be listed when available. Rowling's commentary section is listy and could be converted to prose. Pls see WP:DASH, for example, no spaced emdashes. Image layout in Sales squishes text between right and left images and leaves large white space. Uncited text, example: In the last financial year in which no Harry Potter book was released, Bloomsbury's profits dropped by 75%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I like the editor above feel that it has not been long enough for reception of the book to take root, and thus making this article featured would in essence keep it from advancing into an article that it could eventually be. As well, if there is still hype going on about this book, it would certainly fail the stability criterion. Jared (t)  02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/quasi-oppose The section on critical reaction is dreadful. All we get are the opinions of three critics? I want to know what everyone thought as a whole. What were the main strengths and weaknesses of the book? What did every critic say needed to be improved upon? How was the book received in different nations? I can't possibly support with that section in its current state. -- Kicking222 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not reasonable to expect the article to relate the opinion of every critic. Raul654 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said "everyone" and "every critic", I didn't literally mean "every critic". I meant that the article should express what the consensus thought, not just a few sentences each from three critics. -- Kicking222 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/weak oppose. Unfortunately, it is only short time out for FA, and I'm afraid stability criterion will shake considerably, even with semi-protection. I also doubt if this is going to pass with the listy section of Rowling's comments. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't going to happen less than a month after release. The article has to endure the enormous amount of fans, anti-fans, amateur scholars, plagiarizers and religious fanatics who want to have their say about the book. The initial bruhaha has to settle before any serious attempts at reaching FA-status should be attempted. Peter ^Isotalo 10:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per other comments, this book is too new to really even have completed its impact enough to comprehensively report on it.--Esprit15d 12:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: battle of hogwarts part in the plot summary should really be trimmed. -Icewedge 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too soon, so stability is a definite problem. The plot summary is also too long- it's as long as the synopsis for the three books of Lord of the Rings, and it's really unnecessary to have subtitles.-Wafulz 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Currently fairly badly structured. It looks like the plot section was grafted onto the front of an existing article of pre-release information - more cross-referencing is needed; "pre-release" material should be written in a discussion style (i.e. what conclusions were being drawn by fans from the clues given) rather than a list style. The pre-release information section features some duplication of material; critical reception section currently essentially consists of three random textbites rather than a general summary drawing on a wider range of sources. "Rowling's commentary and supplement" section could reasonably have the ((laundry)) tag applied to it (i.e. converting list to prose). I also agree with one previous commenter that stability is a valid concern. 82.71.48.158 17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. It's not there yet, however it will be soon. --Isis4563(talk) 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. This isn't even close to being one of Wikipedia's best articles. (I'm not even sure it should have passed GA—although it did.) On top of that, the article isn't stable, and the book hasn't been out long enough for its reputation to shake out. Other than the plot, the article is dominated by ephemeral factoids that eventually will recede into trivia. (Is it really that important that a couple of newspapers reviewed it a few days early?) I also agree that the critical reception section is woefully short. The editors who are so concerned about excessive length should trim some of the trivia sections, to make room for real analysis from citable sources. Marc Shepherd 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too soon. Will ^(talk) 03:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on stability grounds, the article has undergone many changes in the four weeks that the book has been out and will undoubtedly be revised further. I have read the article a few times in the last four weeks and it has changed substantially in content and layout each time I have read it. Give it time to stabilise, and it will no doubt have far fewer objections if it is nominated again. But it's just too soon right now. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 13:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I just did a scholarly search on "Deathly Hallows" and came up with nothing. Other Potter books have been analyzed by scholars, so I think it would be important to wait and see what they have to say before promoting this to FA. Wrad 03:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many sections uncited. Not stable enough yet. ♫ Cricket02 12:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.