Talk:Harry and the Potters

cleanup

Reads like a promo poster --froth^{T C} 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

image

This article used to have a nice promo image, but it was removed because Wikipedia doesn't like fair use images or something. --P4k 21:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because there was a free alternative. I personally don't entirely agree to this policy, but in this case it has something to it. Regardless, I'm going to a Harry and the Potters concert this week and I'll be sure to take lots of photos. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

minor vandalism fixed

Album title read "Voldemort Can't Stop the Cock!" Corrected it yesterday, May 7. Andchimeras 22:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to report changes you make on the talk page of an article (although the comedic value of this particular piece of vandalism might be worth noting at WP:BAD). --Cheeser1 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

album pages

I'm trying to make pages for all of the albums, i'm not sure why the pages were deleted in the past, but hopefully we can make some sort of acceptable pages for the albums, as to get rid of many of these dead links all over the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHorrible101 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dewikilinking redlinks

Redlinks should be de-wikilinked. Someone is making album articles but if they aren't up within a week the relinks should be delinked anyways. As for the rest of the redlinks: please say if you are going to write an article. If nobody speaks up within about a week, let the dewikilinking begin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ages vs. year of birth

Consider replacing ages with the year of birth. If this article goes stale, ages become incorrect. Ages at a particular time, like "28 when the song was written" don't have this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced with year of birth and used Template:Birth date and age. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was looking for something like that, instead of resorting to "ages when a song was written" or something. Good edit. --Cheeser1 00:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD

Editors should follow this standard. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

First, my comments:

• Comply with WP:HEAD for section headings.
• Comply with WP:CITE for positioning of references.
• See WP:LEAD - the lead intro should adequately summarise the article, it goes into some level of detail that really isn't required.
• Copyedit required (e.g. "...the two band members dress (in in the full V-neck sweater and maroon and gold tie fashion of wizard-school Hogwarts[4]) and claim to be the book's titular character." - makes little sense.
• Band members section should be prose, not a list.
• Why is "The PotterFace" emboldened?
• One citation in whole Lyrics section is not adequate.
• "Harry and the Potters prefer to play in libraries, but will perform almost anywhere they are invited, as long as it is not too far from the tour route." - is this an advert or an encyclopaedia article?
• If the Other Bands section is so relevant, it should be included in the main body about the band members. Also, do not use external links in the main section of the article.
• Ref 7 is not appropriate as it requires registration to read the article.
• The media and external links section need serious pruning down.

There's a lot to do with the article before it's appropriate to promote it to GA so I'm going to fail it for the time being. Feel free to work on it and renominate it when you've dealt with the points above. The Rambling Man 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to GA review Harry and the Potters. The points you made will help when I and others work on it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've completed a very extension revision based on the reviewers comments and Good Article criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

I'm not reviewing the article for GA, but I would like to say that the career section is a bit hard to read as it it now. It's a bit jumbled, and the paragraphs are rather fragmented. The first part of it could be broken up a bit, and the second could be more condensed (including trimming the block quotes because they ruin the flow, plus the two pitchfork articles are kind of redundant), but the last part looks fine to me. The lyrics and reception section look nice and well-formatted. Also, the external links don't need citation-style formatting. No point in listing access dates. Sdornan 04:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Album covers

An editor objected and I removed the images. I don't know the Wiki policy on album covers. If anyone can make the appropriate argument, please do so. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, looking at Wiki policy as of 2007, album covers -unless specifically released - can not appear in discographies on a fair use rational. The relevant policies and guidelines are:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music where it says "Do not use album covers in discographies, as this is an unnecessary use of images and is not compatible with Wikipedia's fair use policy"
2. Wikipedia:Non-free content where it says "An album cover image as part of a discography. A discography is a type of list, and such usage of images on a list normally does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic.

So, unless we get a release for the cover art, they can't appear in the discography ...but they can appear in the text if someone wishes to make reference to them. See policy and guidelines:

1. Policy where it says "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."
2. Examples of acceptable use where it says:

Some copyrighted images may be used on Wikipedia, providing they meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content. Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia.

Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary).

So, album cover must sit next to critical commentary in the text. Not in the discography. That's Wiki policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Trying to make the "See Also" section conform to WP policy: see Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#The "See also". The relevant bits of text are:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid, and it should ideally not repeat links already present in the article or link to pages that do not exist. Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links.

and

There may be a "See also" section which can include:

• Terms which can be confused with Title, for example New Market and Newmarket
• Likely misspellings of Title, for example Belmont, Belmonte and Bellmont

and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD#See also:

Most "see also" sections should be temporary. If a link is included elsewhere in an article, it does not need to be in a "see also" section. Most or all links in "see also" sections should be incorporated into the body of the article.

From my understanding, the "See Also" section should have links that can not possibly be fit into the text of the article but that may cause a reader confusion. So all the links that have been added to the See Also I've made certain that they appeared in the text before deleting. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Second GA review

I have taken on Harry and the Potters for a further review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by Wassupwestcoast. Apologies that it has taken so long to get round to this; the number of nominations always seems to exceed the number of reviewers!

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 10:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

This is mostly good, flows logically and is pleasant to read. Some points that need addressing are given below:

• In places the prose is, if anything, too informal. It needs a thorough copyedit, but to give some examples (these are not exhaustive!):

"Outside of the lab, Paul was a musician whose indie band - The Secrets- had toured in the northeast from 2001 to 2002. But the band had just broken up and Paul's musical side found its outlet as a co-founder of a small indie label called Eskimo Laboratories." Sentence starting with 'But'.

"The barbecue concert was a bust..." This could be expressed less idiomatically.

"It's hard to tell them apart, except Paul sports the studded leather belt." Avoid contractions (It's > It is). Also the sentence grammar could do with improving here.

"Their friend Ernie Kim from the Boston math-rockers Tristan da Cunha helped on drums." This is an example of an over-informal tone. Maybe instead, something like "Percussion was provided by an acquaintance of the band, Ernie Kim of the Boston math-rockers Tristan da Cunha."? (also note italics for the band name, and maybe a wiki-link for "math-rockers" if such a thing exists?)

• The article over-uses the word "kids". This, again, is an informal colloquialism with different meanings in American and British English, and should be replaced by something more definitive and suitable for an encyclopedia (eg "young people", "teenagers", "adolescents" etc).

1.2 Manual of Style

The article adheres to the MoS: it is well wikilinked, complies with the recommended section order and layout, and citations are formatted using the appropriate templates. The only issues I have here are...

• The sub-headings in the Career section are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. They all need a rewrite ("Lit-rock: a concept not just guitars and nice haircuts" is the worst offender; it is ungrammatical, not particularly neutral and reads like it came from a magazine). A few things to bear in mind whilst doing this are:

"Beginning of wizard rock" may be inappropriate for its section, as this is only briefly mentioned at the start (although I realise that the band started the genre).

Headings 1.2 and 1.5 to a large extent duplicate each other.

"The Potter Mobile: 13 000 miles of wizard rock" is too short a section to have its own heading.

"Harry Potter: isn't it just a fad?" Headings should not be posed as questions.

• The citations for the newspaper quotes (in the "Lit-rock: a concept not just guitars and nice haircuts" section) should come at the end of the quote itself.

• Italicisation of band names is inconsistent throughout the article (eg second paragraph of "Libraries, bookstores and fan conventions")

2 Factual accuracy PASS, but see comment

The article is generally well-sourced, and makes good use of its sources. However...

• The Post-Standard quote in "Beginning of wizard rock" either needs a citation, or should be removed if one can't be provided (because it is a direct quote, which must be sourced).

3 Coverage PASS

The article covers its subject well, and remains focused throughout.

4 Neutrality WEAK FAIL

This is a tricky one. At present the article reads almost as a fan-created piece. This is not a criticism of the editors, but a consequence of the informal writing style and the positive slant of the article, other than a very minor criticism in the "Reception" section. It may help to include more musical reviews of the band - with a few albums under their belt, I doubt that all the reviews have been 100% positive (in fact, I found this after a couple of minutes on Google, although the source is borderline). However, if there are genuinely no balancing comments from reliable sources, I'll withdraw this objection ;)

Critical reviews added and the priece re-written for a more formal style. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast

5 Stability PASS

The article shows no signs of instability or edit-warring.

6 Images PASS

The image used is appropriately captioned and bears a suitable license.

As a result of the above concerns I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although in some circumstances the hold period can be briefly extended). To help with tracking, editors may like to strike through each comment as it is dealt with, or use the template {{done}} after each comment. I realise that there is quite a lot to deal with, and I suspect some GA reviewers would have failed the article outright. However, it seems only fair to give as full and honest a review as possible (especially considering the time this has been on the GAC list!), so I'll be flexible with the reassessment date ;)

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or are ready for a re-review. In any case I'll check back here in seven days (around 5th September). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 17:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the great comments. I think it will be possible to address them all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address all the GA reviewers concers. More references were added including critical comments and reviews. Sub-headings were re-worded and re-organized. The piece was re-written for style. Hope all is well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done an superb job, and the article is very nearly there. For convenience' sake I've undertaken a minor copyedit - mostly to bring the band names, album titles and the odd date into line with the MoS - and a couple of points that need your expert attention struck me:

*I commented out a sentence in the Harry Potter fandom and fan conventions section (5th paragraph) because it is an opinion. I don't know if this can be salvaged; if it's quoted opinion it could be rewritten (eg According to X, Harry and the Potters have been at it the longest, and thus have had more time to make peace with the idea.). Otherwise it might be best to lose the sentence.

*The first paragraph under Influence has a quote from the Washington Post followed by a partial quote. (There's a touch of the Ramones in their ultra simple lyrics.") It looks like something has gone missing here during editing.

*From the same section, paragraph 3: The brothers have vast quantities of both passion and ability to engage an audience: - this too is POV opinion; it may be true, but unless someone has said it (see first comment above), we can't use it ;)

If you can address the above points, I'll be happy to pass the article. Great work! EyeSerene^TALK 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your very good review. I've addressed the three outstanding issues. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Harry and the Potters as a Good Article, and listed it as such on the Good Articles page under Arts > Music > Performers, groups, composers, and people related to them. For the record, Wassupwestcoast contributed significantly to this GA pass (with 5 or more major edits since the start of the review process).

Great work - well done! EyeSerene^TALK 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Now for a feature article.. not really.. Hpfan9374 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2006-present -- 2006-2007

The Harry Potter fandom and fan conventions (2006-present) subtitle was changed to Harry Potter fandom and fan conventions (2006-2007), so I have reverted it. If you would care to look at other bands histories, such as Linkin Park or U2 for example, they use 'present' and not '2007'. Also, who is to say if the The Harry Potter fandom and fan conventions part of the band's history will end this year, I may expect it will, though it may not so 'present' must be used. Hpfan9374 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is not exactly clear about this but does say:

Avoid statements that will date quickly, except on pages that are regularly refactored, such as those that cover current events. Avoid such items as recently and soon (unless their meaning is clear in a storyline), currently (except on rare occasions when it is not redundant), and is soon to be superseded. Instead, use either:

more precise items (since the start of 2005; during the 1990s; is expected to be superseded by 2008); or an as of phrase (as of August 2007), which is a signal to readers of the time-dependence of the statement, and to later editors of the need to update the statement (see As of).

So maybe 'present' is OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Hpfan9374 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wizard Rock EP of the Month Club

File:Wzrockepclubjuly.png

I believe a paragraph or subheading related to Harry and the Potter's work on the Wizard Rock EP of the Month Club, should be noted. I am currently creating a montage of the album covers, therefore do not create one yourself.

This club may not be worthy of an article of its own, therefore I would strongly suggest it be merged into part of this article. I am uncertain of its place among the contents though, and for that reason it may only receive a paragraph among the Wizard Rock fandom. -- Where is the correct position for this?