Talk:Harry Potter (character)/Archive 3

message: The article needs information on how harry potter was created, interviews with radcliffe on his portrayal, a section on the character in popular culture, and a massive trimming of the characteristics-type information, it's just way too much and is bloated with cruft. It probably should only be a 3 paragraphs long. Judgesurreal777 05:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I am not sure of that. While I respect you, Judgesurreal, I think that the article is about Harry Potter the character. The discussion about the development of Harry belongs in JKR's page, and Radcliffe's comments on his protrayal belongs in Radcliffe's article. I don't mind some sort of direct for more info about that, but as the article is about a fictional character, the info about that character is the only thing that should be in that article, imho. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well....could you outline for me then what the article would look like, say, if it was a "Good article"? Cause if that stuff went in the other articles, what would go in this one? Judgesurreal777 04:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article restructure

message: Hi there, following the my template in Hermione Granger (a good article), the talk above and the consensus of WP:Potter, I just boldly rewrote the article to make it a good article, if everything works. I firmly enforced WP:NOR and WP:WAF (bye bye, in universe cruft) and made my article so it is to at least 80% out of universe, with real life refs. Feedback and wikignoming are appreciated.
To all the in universe editors: I really assume good faith, but I am afraid that only little of your input is lastly Wikipedia-worthy. Probably the Harry Potter Wikia is a better place for you.
REMARK: a lot of refs go to "accio-quote". Technically, it may fail WP:RS, but they are transcripts of radio / video interviews. These interviews are available, but linking to them is a violation of WP:EL. —Onomatopoeia 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bold rewrite + GAC

message: Again, fantastic work! Review in just a second...Judgesurreal777 06:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yoohoo!! Thanks for the analysis, and for the green plus. —Onomatopoeia 08:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a good start, but I agree this article needs work. There's some good content, but it also tends to gloss over many points and other portions are vague and unclear. I've already started working on "Deathly Hallows" and I'll be working on the rest as time permits.PNW Raven 19:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might notice that i've excised a number of these expansions. In addition to bloat issues, we skate a bit too close to OR for comfort. I think if the points you find unclear or glossed over can be said succinctly, then rock it, m'man (or m'woman, if you are of the other gender). If my edits seem harsh, consider me the bean counter of the edit. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We need to hew pretty close to the GA granted version, as it is very much what is needed, and very little more "in the sixth book, harry did xyz" is needed. Judgesurreal777 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no reason at all to stay with the GA version as long as the edits converge on an FA version that sticks with Wikipedia policy on fictional character articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed