Good work adding some references, but there are still a few missing, for example the second paragraph of the history, and every item in the infobox must be soruced individually. Take a look at some of the Featured articles at Wookieepedia to get a better idea what type of sourcing is expected of quality articles. As for the tense, there are still a few instances of future or present tense in the article, i.e. "the Elder Wand does not ensure the victory of its master in a duel, nor render him or her invincible".
Another point, avoid speculation. Articles are written in-universe, so fan speculation should only be included in the behind the scenes section, and then, only if it is a widely acknowledged fan theory. So for example this really shouldn't be in the article: "(This may not be entirely true, as theoretically all one would have to do is disarm Harry by force as he did to Malfoy)." Grunny(Talk) 23:01, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
I fully referenced everything in the infobox and did everything you mentioned. Say something back if I missed anything.--L.V.K.T.V.J.'(Send an owl!) 23:47, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
I made various small changes to it while reviewing, let me know if you have any questions or problems with any of them :). Grunny (talk) 05:38, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think we need the "Beedle the Bard (real)" reference because of Dumbledore's notes, but if that confused you, I will make it more specific. Also, the changes you made are good. One last thing: I saw that you didn't cross off one of the objections above, so I tidied that up too. Thanks.--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 14:52, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't confusion, more just the inconsistency of referencing the same book three different ways ;). Good job all round :). Grunny (talk) 23:18, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
MargiechocoholicOwl me! 09:48, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Although a good article, it lacks subtitling and neatness, it seems a bit dense when you take a first glance at it. Could also use some more pictures.
We have gone through the History and separated the Myth from the reality and in general cleaned up the article. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 20:59, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Overall I support the article for nomination, just a question, both owners and masters are listed, but the only difference is Lord Voldemort, this is just a suggestion, I still support the article regardless, but would it maybe be better to just list the Masters on the info box, and then maybe reference that Lord Voldemort owned it but never mastered it somewhere in the article instead? Like I said, I support it either way, just a thought. --BachLynn23 00:18, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
I removed my objections, as all the problems have been rectified. A very good, detailed article with pictures and quotes. I also think it's one of the best referenced articles I've ever seen. Nice infobox also. MargiechocoholicOwl me! 09:54, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.