Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, I am re-reviewing this article to ensure compliance with current good article criteria. I have determined that it doesn't meet criteria for the reasons outlined below and needs so much work that I find it unlikely an editor or group of editors could bring the article up to speck in the general week. The issues (numbers correspond to elements of the good article criteria):

• Excessive use on non-free images in violation of WP:NFCC (c. 6): There are six non-free images used in the article, with many redundant or not the subject of critical commentary necessary to justify their use per our criteria for nonfree content. In particular, the duplicate image of Ralph Fiennes portrayal should go, but most of the other pictures are unnecessary illustrations of the various people portraying the characters. That's nice, but unless you've got the content to justify them, they need to be removed. The Simpsons picture adds nothing (especially since Burns looks only marginally different from his usual appearance.)
• Multiple, egregious issues with sourcing and original research (c. 2a, 2b, 2c): All citations need to be fully formatted using a template like ((cite web)) or ((cite news)) and should not be batched inside <ref> tags. On a cursory examination many don't appear to meet reliable source guidelines, such as www.accio-quote.org.
  • The Harry Potter chapter templates are not going to cut it. We need fully formatted citations with page numbers if they are being used for citations as a primary source. Also, none of this HP1,2,3... abbreviations in the text or infobox. Spell out the names.
  • There is massive amounts of unreferenced content and original research. Perhaps the most solid example is the third paragraph of #Portrayals within films, which is awash of speculation and synthesis.
• The article is not broad in coverage and delves into minutae. The appearances sections can be dramatically cut, as can the family section (or that could be integrated into the appearances section.) There's very little information about the development of the character, but the main issue is a lack of actual critical reception. There's plenty about who's been likened to Voldemort and some interesting bits that could form a "Scholarly analysis" or similar section, but very little on how book reviewers reacted. That's a huge missing chunk from comprehensiveness.
• It's a secondary concern due to the issues with content overhaul, but the lead needs to be recast as well, dwelling almost exclusively on in-universe aspects of the subject.

Due to the massive issues listed above, I'm failing the article outright. If you have any comments or queries, ping me on my talk, I'm not watching this page. Remember that you can renominate an article at WP:GAN anytime you feel it meets criteria. Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]