The featured articles of the wiki are articles that represent the best that the Harry Potter Wiki has to offer. This is not a way to showcase the articles of your favourite characters, houses, or the like.
Following the review process, be stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism.
Not be tagged with any sort of improvement tags (i.e. more sources, expand, etc).
Have a proper lead that gives a good summary of the topic and can be used for the front page featured box.
Have significant information from all sources and appearances, especially a biography for character articles.
Be completely referenced for all available material and sources.
Have all quotes and images sourced.
Provide at least one quote on the article. A leading quote at the beginning of the article will be required only if there is quotable dialogue by or about the subject. Although quotes may be placed in the body of the article, a maximum of one quote is allowed at the beginning of each section.
Include a "personality and traits" section on all character articles.
Include a "magical skills and abilities" section on all relevant character articles, especially for Wizard characters where said powers and/or abilities are stipulated.
Include a reasonable number of images of sufficient quality to illustrate the article, if said images are available.
First, nominate an article you find is worthy of featured status, putting it at the bottom of the list below; see criteria above.
Others will object to the nomination if they disagree that the article is good enough; they will then supply reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article (errors, style, organisation, images, notability, sources).
Supporters adjust the article until the objectors (with reasonable objections) are satisfied.
The article is placed on the featured article list and added to the front page queue.
Also, if, at least a week after the article's nomination, that article has 2 Unspeakable supports and no objections (or the objections have been stricken or overridden), it will be added to the queue, and will be officially known as a "featured article."
Be sure to place sign in the "Nominated by" line when the nomination is posted for voting.
How to vote:
Before doing anything, be sure to read the article completely, keeping a sharp eye out for mistakes.
Afterwards, compare the article to the criteria listed above, and then either support or object the article's nomination.
If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.
As stated above, any objections will be looked upon by the nominator, supporters, and anyone willing to improve the article, and action will be taken to please the objectors. Do not strike other users' objections; it is up to the objector to review the changes and strike if they are satisfied.
Once an article has a total of five votes, and no outstanding objections after at least a week, the article will be added to the list and be officially known as a "featured article."
No nominator may vote for their own nominations.
Also remember to add {{F.A. Nomination}} at the top of the article you are nominating.
At least once every month, the next article in the queue will be highlighted on the Main Page as featured, marked with the {{FA}} template and removed from the list of nominations. The beginning of the article then appears on the Main Page via the {{Featured article}} template. Nominations that are inactive with outstanding objections for a month will be eliminated from the nominations list by the Unspeakables.
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. --MargiechocoholicOwl 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)
--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 21:54, February 21, 2010 (UTC) (Oppose vote struck under rule How to vote 2.1 "If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.")
--Wizard44 18:30 May 28,2010 (UTC) (Oppose vote struck under rule How to vote 2.1 "If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.")
--*Ginny*(Point Me!) 08:09, May 19, 2011 (UTC) (Oppose vote struck under rule How to vote 2.1 "If you object, please supply concrete reasons for doing so, and how it can be improved.")
Comments
No sourcings. If you're going to nominate an article, it should have sourcings so people can tell where the info is from. *Ginny*(Point Me!) 08:08, May 19, 2011 (UTC)
No sources or appearances. Jayden Matthews 11:46, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Grunny:
Everything needs to be sourced, so you need references for everything in the infobox and the article itself (except the intro).
There are still missing refs, for example, unsourced sentence at the end of the 1992-1993 section, and every item in the infobox requires a source. Grunny (talk) 04:13, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this article are written in the present tense and per a recent vote, this needs to be changed to past-tense.Grunny(Talk) 09:42, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
--I've reffed the article. I'll try and get some specific chapters soon. I didn't see any tense issues, but if anyone see something I missed, be bold and fix it! --Cubs Fan(Talk to me) 11:12, February 7, 2010 (UTC)
Everything has been fully referenced down to the chapter by CubsFan and I. We have improved the storytelling telling and the accuracy. The English has also greatly improved. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 06:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering whether the article is in American English or British English because I have seen spellings of both. --Athletiger 01:11, August 1, 2010 (UTC)Athletiger
Where are the American spellings? --JKoch(Owl Me!) 01:15, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I personally have reviewed the article thoroughly and resourced those few unresourced senteces and even added a few pictures. I will double check it to make sure and also try to be more specific about the resources and source the chapters rather than the books alone. — Firefox1095 — 03:25, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Nomination comments: I have recently rewritten the Irma Pince and Filius Flitwick articles and finished rewriting Sprout the other day. I believe it is of sufficient quality of a featured article.
(1 Unspeakable/7 Users/8 Total)
Support
--Butterfly the rabbit (You cannot vote on an article you nominated yourself. Sorry.)
Some unsourced areas. There should be no information that can't be referenced to an official source, so there should be no information without a ref tag attached to it somewhere. Examples: second part of "Early life" paragraph is missing a reference; Second paragraph (the one sentence one) in"Earlier years" needs a source; Second paragraph in "Sirius Black's Escape". I won't list them all, so just work through the article referencing all information and I'll take another look later :-). Grunny (talk) 04:17, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
Nomination comments: I have recently rewritten the Irma Pince, Pomona Sprout and Filius Flitwick articles and finished rewriting Hooch the other day. I believe it is of sufficient quality of a featured article.
References. The article needs to be completely referenced. Furthermore the few references presented in the article are extremely brief and do not convey many information.
Speculation. Some statements on the article are somewhat speculative. Hooch being in Hufflepuff, for instance.
Quality of the quotes. The quotes are filled with links and the explanatory notes (the material between square brackets) shouldn't be italicized. Also, quotes from the narrator should be credited as "Description" and not as if a characted has said it.
Some sentences are extemely unnecessary and seem to be only in the article to make space for more and, (I should add) redundant links. One such example is: "and excelled at her Flying Classes in her first year, which was taught by the Flying Instructor." Seriously? I thought they were taught by the Potions master... -- Seth Cooperowl post! 16:33, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
BachLynn23:
I don't see how the quote used at the beginning of the School years section, is relevant to Rolanda Hooch.
Shouldn't it say that she "may" have purchased her wand from Ollivanders or that she "probably" did? Just because most purchased their wands there, doesn't necessarily mean she did also.
In order for her to have been in school with Albus Dumbledore, she had to have been born between 1881 and 1899. Assuming she graduated at or before the Great War which took place between 1914 to 1918 in the real world.
Should there really be a picture (the one where everyone is raising their wands) on this page, if Rolanda isn't in it in the picture and it is only assumed that she participated in the battle?
I've changed it into what I believe is a better quote.
I've added "may have purchased". It is possible she bought her wand from other wandmakers such as Jimmy Kiddell, or even Gregorovitch.
Where is it claimed in the article that Rolanda and Dumbledore were classmates?
The picture is merely there for illustrative purposes. The picture is more suitable than, say, a image of Hooch in 1991. -- Seth Cooperowl post! 21:44, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
To start off, there are two unreferenced items in the infobox that need to be sourced.
Likewise, the second bullet point of the "Behind the scenes" section needs a reference.
Early life section:
You don't mention his parents in the Biography. Note that there should be nothing in the introduction that isn't covered in the biography.
"The Ministry of Magic discovered this, among other incidents, and presumably performed a Memory Charm on Tom." "Presumably" is very uncertain wording and suggests that this is original research which shouldn't be included in an article unless it can be backed up by significant evidence from a reliable source. So did they perform a memory charm or not? If so, what source clarifies that they did?
I'll continue reading it once you've handled these few objections. Good work so far, and sorry I took so long to get to this review! Grunny (talk) 04:24, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
I fixed everything you mentioned except the fourth bullet, as I don't see it in the intro, Biography, Personality, or relationships. If you can point it out to me I will gladly fix it. Thanks.--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 01:09, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
It's in the Early life section of the biography, second sentence of the second paragraph: "When her brother Morfin noticed her interest, he hexed Tom with hives. The Ministry of Magic discovered this, among other incidents, and presumably performed a Memory Charm on Tom." I'll look over it again soon :-). Grunny (talk) 01:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Early life – "made her play" is a little colloquial can you find a better way to word this? "While they were gone, Merope made her play for Tom."
The "Personality and traits" section needs to be gone over. It needs to be in past-tense just like the rest of the article, and you need to avoid speculatory wording and state only the facts. Words like "seems" and "likely" suggest original research which is discouraged in encyclopedic articles. Grunny (talk) 23:13, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
I could not think of a proper wording for the first objection, so I replaced it with foreshadowing for the next section. I also did the best I could on the other objecton.--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 02:06, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
I reworded this for you. In encyclopedia articles it is important not to make your own assumptions as they will often be different to others. Articles should remain non-point of view and not have original research. So it is better to state facts and let the reader infer what they can from the info. Grunny (talk) 04:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Looks good at a glance. Can you add references for each item in the infobox? Also, make sure references go after punctuation, i.e. "could open it.[1]" not "could open it[1]." I'll give it a copy-edit soon :). Grunny (talk) 06:21, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
Comments
I have thoroughly referenced this article. It does need more quotes, if anyone wants to add some. --JKoch(Owl Me!) 02:18, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Nomination comments: With her film identity recently discovered, nummerous additions and sources, I think the article looks better for Featured status now.
Too little is actually known about the character to generate a legitimate portrait of her life. Everything we know about is either derived from seeing her in the background of the films or hearing about her in the third person in off-hand sentences throughout the text.
Comments{C
As far as I know, there are no official, sources for her ethymology. Should we move it Behind the Scenes, then? Or remove it entirely?--Rodolphus 16:00, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
If this article is promoted every article relating to the main Weasley family (besides Molly Weasley, which I will eventually work on) will be an FA. Nice little tidbit, I think.--L.V.K.T.V.J.(Send an owl!) 20:46, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Nomination comments: Yet another rewrite. Referenced to the extreme, with not-too-many images, I believe that this article is now of sufficient quality of Featured Article status.
(0 Unspeakables/0 Users/0 Total)
Support
Seems to be rather well-written. It's obviously sourced well, so I see no reason to not support. ceranthor 18:14, July 29, 2011 (UTC)
Nomination comments: I think this is a well-referenced and well-written article. I've tuned it up a lot over the past week or so, and I think that, while it's short, it's a great article.