The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Promoted ProfessorTofty (talk) 00:36, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Peter Pettigrew

• Nominator: Thorning
• Nomination comments: Very well written

(1 Unspeakables/13 Users/14 Total)

Support

1. --ƃuıuɹoɥʇ^{(Send me an owl)} 16:46, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
2. --L.V.K.T.V.J.^{(Send an owl!)} 20:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
3. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 16:58, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
4. --Wizard44 16:49 May 27,2010 (UTC)
5. --Joeworthy 21:02, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
6. --El Profeta Vespertino 22:10, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

   --Lord David 23:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

7. --Margiechocoholic ^{Owl me!} 13:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
8. --Emmy (★) 19:49, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
9. --Rodolphus 11:07, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
10. Happychickenvermin!!!
11. No objections. All commenting users have voted in support. - Nick O'Demus 11:15, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
12. XxScurryxX 20:47, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
13. _—  Firefox1095  _— 02:40, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
14. *Ginny*^{(Point Me!)} 01:01, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Object

Comments

• This needs considerable work. In five minutes I have seen a dozen errors in grammar, poor wording, and british spelling. --Hcoknhoj 08:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • After making nearly 200 changes, it is at least grammatically correct and has improved continuity and storytelling. --Hcoknhoj 23:53, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
    • Anyone want to look through this one after me? --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 00:10, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
      • Get rid of the references in the introduction. It is a good article besides that.--L.V.K.T.V.J.^{(Send an owl!)} 00:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
        • Reading just the Behind the Scenes section, I feel that this article may violate the Neutral Point of View Policy, e. g. Peter was untalented. McGonagall and Lupin claimed it, but it´s not true, as revealed by reading the books and the Magical abilities section.--Rodolphus 15:42, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
        • You said Behind the Scenes. I'll take a look at it. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 15:49, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Nowhere does it say that. Throughout the article it says things such as, "Despite being called ____, he was actually _____." It shows up at least three times in the Article. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 15:56, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • • • • • The last point of BTS says: Wormtail is reciprocal of Severus Snape: Wormtail is a Gryffindor who is cowardly, disloyal, untalented, friend of the Marauders but disrespected by the Voldemort, while Snape is a Slytherin who is brave, loyal, talented, enemy of the Marauders but respected by Voldemort. Also, in their school years, Wormtail took pleasure in bullying Snape, while in their adulthood, Snape bullied Wormtail. Emphasis was added by me. It makes Snape sond like the best man ever. How can we fix it?--Rodolphus 16:21, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
• We strike it for now. It is an unnecessary comparison as they are already compared above. --JKoch^{(Owl Me!)} 17:03, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely worthy of FA status, lots of pictures, detailed article with various sections and good referencing. --Margiechocoholic ^{Owl me!} 13:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
• It was already in pretty good shape, but I edited some things and did what I could to clean up the relationships section. Seems like a pretty solid FA, to me, if that's still a possibility. Emmy (★) 19:49, October 18, 2010 (UTC)
• I don´t supoort his betrayal, but the article should be NPOV per policy, and now it is.--Rodolphus 11:08, October 19, 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.

The following discussion is an archived discussion. Please do not modify it.

Not promoted Cavalier One^{(Wizarding Wireless Network)} 09:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Pettigrew (6 votes for, 5 against)

• Support: Well written, plenty of quotes and images.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 02:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not completely sourced. If it is sourced in the future, then I will support the nomination.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not refrenced, no list of sources, poor main image, none of the other images are sourced, and ones got a watermark. Jayce Carver ^Talk 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I've sourced the entire article.--Matoro183 ^(Talk) 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Does not have a relationships section or a personality and traits or skills section. Though the article in question has plenty of pictures and quotes, it is not thoroughly written and needs a longer intro.--Zupkem 10:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: per Zupkekm, but Pettigrew has many images. User:Timothyhouse1 12:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: looks good... Me_Potter_Fan ^(Talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I feel that it need more information.
• Support: I think it looks good. It is a pretty good article with enough quotes and images. Iluvgracie129 01:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good to me... although it could do with a bit more info I think. Quidditch Lover ^{(My talk)}

(contributions) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: add a relationships section and maybe. TSSD
• Support Good article. A lot of detailed information. --- harrypotterthegreat ^{(Owl Me!)}

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.