Harry Potter Wiki:Featured articles nominations

Please read the Featured articles page before posting here for rules and regulations. For past nominations (promoted and rejected) please see the Former nominations page. For all new nominations please add them to the bottom of the list and follow the template given by the other nominations. In addition, please add {{F.A. Nomination}} Template to the top of all pages nominated to be a Featured Article.

Please note: only registered users may vote for Featured Articles. All votes from anon IPs will be struck in accordance with policy.

Nominations

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

Promoted --Matoro183 ^(Talk) 21:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dark Arts (5 votes for, 1 against)

• Support: Comprehensive, a lot of images and appropriate quotes, well-referenced. A bit different from most featured articles, too. Oread 19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Like Defence Against the Dark Arts. Timothyhouse1 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: we had 2 days to go...... Timothyhouse1 13:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I still need to try like above. Timothyhouse1 13:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: The intro needs to be much longer. I also think it needs a stronger main image, the images in the article need to be layed out better. Jayce Carver ^Talk 15:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Plenty of images and quotes. Well referenced. It would make a good FA -- Freakatone ^Talk 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the User Timothyhouse1 actually voted three times (2 supports, 1 oppose). Shouldn't all three votes be struck out in that case? Oread 16:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Good observation. I took care of it. -- Freakatone ^Talk 19:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: The articles are well detailed with images of each of the examples of Dark Magic. The actual information is also detailed as well. It has lots of links on Dark wizards. Waterdrop95 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good to me. ---- Cubs Fan2007 ^(Talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I agree completely. It looks real good and has a good article. Gryff23 19:28, 28 November 2008 (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 discussion.

Peter Pettigrew (3 votes for, 4 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.

Minerva McGonagall (5 votes for, 0 against)

• Support:Referenced, comprehensive, several pictures.AngelQueen 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Nice article, lots of info on a good character. Prissymis 21:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support: A well-written article, plenty of information and well-referenced. Quidditch Lover
• Support: So be it.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 09:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: It looks great. It is a well written article with good references and lots of excellent pictures. Iluvgracie129 17:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)