This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Yates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | David Yates was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not David Yates' personal page. This is an article about him. Be bold, but don't be reckless. Basketball 110 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It says on this article that Order of the Phoenix "is the highest grossing feature film debut for a director." However, in the David Yates infobox it has The Tichborne Claimant listed under films, and that was released in 1998. So why is that not regarded as his feature film debut? Was it made for TV like most of his other films? Christophee ( talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an article about Yates on the Spanish Wikipedia which has been marked as a Good Article. It may be useful to improve this one.-- Luke in spanish ( talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have worked hard in improving the article these past few months and I have also included images. You may have noticed that there have been various different images included in past versions of the article, some of which I have deleted. Sorry for this, but the images on the article at present are finalised and will not be deleted or moved anytime soon. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.18.197 ( talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | St. Nazaire (film) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into David Yates. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Category:Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality Actors and filmmakers Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles Hallows Horcruxes 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated this article again as extensive changes have been made to improve its quality and for it to, hopefully, pass a Good Article review. The main concerns brought up in the previous review - reference formats and the "Film and TV projects" section's size - have now been resolved. So I hope a GA status for this article is on the horizon. Hallows Horcruxes 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Previous reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/David Yates/1
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose needs work to keep the language encyclopedic. Close paraphrasing of source material was found during the review, as well as instances where the article suggested things which went beyond the source material. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | I am not convinced by the reliability of some of the sources used. What makes the following sources reliable? Individual issues with sources have essentially been fixed, but I'm leaving this as a minus to highlight an overall problem with the large number of websources of variable quality which give me an overall "I found it on google" feeling about the article. Focusing on fewer, higher quality, sources, would improve the article. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | All material in the article should faithfully reflect the source material, without closely paraphrasing it. As noted under 1a, examples of both issues (inaccurate reflection or close paraphrasing) were found during the review. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I'm giving this a minus mainly because of the words to watch issue mentioned in 1b. It is certainly something to check before renomination and in subsequent review. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article thoroughly covers the main aspects now: good work! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Getting both 3a and 3b right is a key foundation to meeting the GA criteria, so I am confident that with better sourcing, this article can be brought to GA status. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is hard to judge, but the article seems slightly laudatory in tone: see also the comments about 1b and 2c. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | An article has to meet all of the criteria to pass, but I would pass an article where some of the failings are borderline or arguable. Here there were just too many small problems. I add further remarks below. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
I did not want to close this nomination without checking that there are still reasons that this article does not meet the GA criteria, as that would be immediate grounds for community reassessment! My impression is that the main weaknesses (as found below) are in the "Film and TV projects" section. Here are a few more examples.
These problems may only need small fixes. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Finally I want to end this review with an explanation for my decision not to list the article, nor extend the hold.
During a review, I believe reviewers should check whether an article meets all of the GA criteria. However, it is impossible to check every detail, as the time and effort to do so is comparable with (though of course less than) the combined efforts involved in writing the article in the first place! My approach (which I recommend) is to make a few checks: the GA criteria are not random, but are intended to help reviewers find problems.
In this case, I found problems, and it would have been reasonable of me to fail the nomination immediately for those reasons. However, I don't like failing nominations. So why am I failing it now?
Checking every sentence is not always helpful. I have only done so here because indicative checks found lots of problems. These are largely not the fault of the nominator, as previous editors to the article created them, hence they have been taken on trust. This is a danger implicit in assuming good faith: it is quite likely that another editor has done the same.
My main reason, however, for closing this review, is not that I set an ultimatum, and this ultimatum was not met. I am doing so because I believe that continuing this review damages the article. This does not contradict the fact that I believe the review has improved the article greatly!
In the areas discussed in this review, the article now has too many inline citations: this is not a reason to fail it per the GA criteria, but it does not make an article better to cite every possible source which might be relevant. This is my fault! Because of the concerns expressed here, the editor responded by providing citations for everything. If I continue raising specific concerns, then I will get specific responses. My comments above with regard to criterion 2 reflect this.
What is needed here, in my view, is for the nominator (and any other editors interested in this article) to go away and think hard about how they want to source this article, so that the writing comes naturally, rather than under pressure. Then it will be so much easier to cite sources, because it will be less necessary to do so. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article, with the assistance of Betty Logan, who has kindly offered to peer review the article below. Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to bear me, this is my first peer review outside of the snooker articles, so if I overlook anything then please point it out, or if I structure my comments incorrrectly please refactor them accordingly.
First of all this is a well-written article, flowing and consistent prose that takes you right through Yates' early career up to Harry Potter. The main issue with its de-listing was the lack of referencing and the reference formatting, and both issues have been fixed and are now of a high standard. The other issue was the images, but the images in use are all WikiCommons images with licences. In view of that it is well written, has balanced coverage, images are in order, and aside from the revamp which has seen it undergo some substantial changes it is stable. On the whole I think it meets the criteria for a GA listing. There are some minor issues I think that need to be cleared up, but it should only be a few minutes work:
Other recommendations, although I don't think they are a barrier to GA:
There were several editors involved in de-listing the article originally: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/David_Yates/1. It may be wise to invite these editors to the review to ensure that their main concens have been addressed. If they haven't and they discover GA status has been restored they will just de-list it again, so it's best to sort out all of the problems at this stage. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few 'minor' concerns you have brought up. Shall I rectify them now? Hallows Horcruxes 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
On a surface read the article looks a lot better, and my original concerns are addressed, so if it passes in the end that's fine by me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected Betty Logan's issue about the Half-Blood Prince paragraph holding information not related directly to Yates. Hallows Horcruxes 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope my contributions are worthwhile. :) I'm off to bed. If there are any more issues, then I am willing to correct them (or you can). Hallows Horcruxes 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your concern about the lead containing info on his personal life and that it's "not discussed in the article". There is nothing to discuss and nowhere else to place the information; the only information we have of his personal life is in the "Early life" section and the information in the lead does not fit there. "getsurrey.co.uk" is a reliable source as its a local media site powered by local newspapers in the Surrey area. "Casarotto" is a reliable source as it is the official creative agency that represents Yates, including reporting his career achievements (in this case, Deathly Hallows' success). Collider.com is a reliable source as it is a film news website. It also conducts various interviews with filmmakers and casts, including the interview with David Heyman. I removed some sources which I think are unrealiable, like "sugarcoveredquills", "sueperiorpics" and "quotelucy.com". Hallows Horcruxes 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I cut the "celebrated director" part as the information was not faithfully reflected in the source. To replace it, I added in a new detail which flows with the rest of the opening. In the near future, I'll put "His other works include" to follow up the first paragraph for it not to be too Harry Potter-heavy, therefore creating a balanced lead (which it is now, but even more so when post-Potter projects begin to surface.) Hallows Horcruxes 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've addressed your issues regarding the prose to the best of my ability. I have also found reliable sources along the way and I found the removed quote in the reliable source (Film London), so I added it back into the quote box, killing two birds with one stone as they say! Hallows Horcruxes 10:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comingsoon.net is a reliable source as it is a website devoted to films, reporting official interviews/trailers/cast and crew information etc... It's owned by the media company CraveOnline. Swindonweb.com is a reliable source as it is a local website that reports and showcases local subjects, issues and events. In this case, the site held an interview with Yates in which he spoke about Cr8 Studios, a local studio complex. Hallows Horcruxes 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorted. Hallows Horcruxes 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Harry+Potter+last+goodbye/3848043/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
sir please make a new harry potter movies we all badky miss harry potter its a request from all childrens please make harry potter new movies please please please please sir please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.197.250.137 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
David Yates article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | David Yates was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not David Yates' personal page. This is an article about him. Be bold, but don't be reckless. Basketball 110 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It says on this article that Order of the Phoenix "is the highest grossing feature film debut for a director." However, in the David Yates infobox it has The Tichborne Claimant listed under films, and that was released in 1998. So why is that not regarded as his feature film debut? Was it made for TV like most of his other films? Christophee ( talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There is an article about Yates on the Spanish Wikipedia which has been marked as a Good Article. It may be useful to improve this one.-- Luke in spanish ( talk) 19:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I have worked hard in improving the article these past few months and I have also included images. You may have noticed that there have been various different images included in past versions of the article, some of which I have deleted. Sorry for this, but the images on the article at present are finalised and will not be deleted or moved anytime soon. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.18.197 ( talk) 16:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | St. Nazaire (film) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 February 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into David Yates. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Category:Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality Actors and filmmakers Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles Hallows Horcruxes 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I have nominated this article again as extensive changes have been made to improve its quality and for it to, hopefully, pass a Good Article review. The main concerns brought up in the previous review - reference formats and the "Film and TV projects" section's size - have now been resolved. So I hope a GA status for this article is on the horizon. Hallows Horcruxes 13:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Previous reassessment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/David Yates/1
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose needs work to keep the language encyclopedic. Close paraphrasing of source material was found during the review, as well as instances where the article suggested things which went beyond the source material. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | I am not convinced by the reliability of some of the sources used. What makes the following sources reliable? Individual issues with sources have essentially been fixed, but I'm leaving this as a minus to highlight an overall problem with the large number of websources of variable quality which give me an overall "I found it on google" feeling about the article. Focusing on fewer, higher quality, sources, would improve the article. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | All material in the article should faithfully reflect the source material, without closely paraphrasing it. As noted under 1a, examples of both issues (inaccurate reflection or close paraphrasing) were found during the review. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | I'm giving this a minus mainly because of the words to watch issue mentioned in 1b. It is certainly something to check before renomination and in subsequent review. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article thoroughly covers the main aspects now: good work! |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Getting both 3a and 3b right is a key foundation to meeting the GA criteria, so I am confident that with better sourcing, this article can be brought to GA status. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | This is hard to judge, but the article seems slightly laudatory in tone: see also the comments about 1b and 2c. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Fine |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Fine |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | An article has to meet all of the criteria to pass, but I would pass an article where some of the failings are borderline or arguable. Here there were just too many small problems. I add further remarks below. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
I did not want to close this nomination without checking that there are still reasons that this article does not meet the GA criteria, as that would be immediate grounds for community reassessment! My impression is that the main weaknesses (as found below) are in the "Film and TV projects" section. Here are a few more examples.
These problems may only need small fixes. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Finally I want to end this review with an explanation for my decision not to list the article, nor extend the hold.
During a review, I believe reviewers should check whether an article meets all of the GA criteria. However, it is impossible to check every detail, as the time and effort to do so is comparable with (though of course less than) the combined efforts involved in writing the article in the first place! My approach (which I recommend) is to make a few checks: the GA criteria are not random, but are intended to help reviewers find problems.
In this case, I found problems, and it would have been reasonable of me to fail the nomination immediately for those reasons. However, I don't like failing nominations. So why am I failing it now?
Checking every sentence is not always helpful. I have only done so here because indicative checks found lots of problems. These are largely not the fault of the nominator, as previous editors to the article created them, hence they have been taken on trust. This is a danger implicit in assuming good faith: it is quite likely that another editor has done the same.
My main reason, however, for closing this review, is not that I set an ultimatum, and this ultimatum was not met. I am doing so because I believe that continuing this review damages the article. This does not contradict the fact that I believe the review has improved the article greatly!
In the areas discussed in this review, the article now has too many inline citations: this is not a reason to fail it per the GA criteria, but it does not make an article better to cite every possible source which might be relevant. This is my fault! Because of the concerns expressed here, the editor responded by providing citations for everything. If I continue raising specific concerns, then I will get specific responses. My comments above with regard to criterion 2 reflect this.
What is needed here, in my view, is for the nominator (and any other editors interested in this article) to go away and think hard about how they want to source this article, so that the writing comes naturally, rather than under pressure. Then it will be so much easier to cite sources, because it will be less necessary to do so. Geometry guy 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article, with the assistance of Betty Logan, who has kindly offered to peer review the article below. Geometry guy 19:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to bear me, this is my first peer review outside of the snooker articles, so if I overlook anything then please point it out, or if I structure my comments incorrrectly please refactor them accordingly.
First of all this is a well-written article, flowing and consistent prose that takes you right through Yates' early career up to Harry Potter. The main issue with its de-listing was the lack of referencing and the reference formatting, and both issues have been fixed and are now of a high standard. The other issue was the images, but the images in use are all WikiCommons images with licences. In view of that it is well written, has balanced coverage, images are in order, and aside from the revamp which has seen it undergo some substantial changes it is stable. On the whole I think it meets the criteria for a GA listing. There are some minor issues I think that need to be cleared up, but it should only be a few minutes work:
Other recommendations, although I don't think they are a barrier to GA:
There were several editors involved in de-listing the article originally: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/David_Yates/1. It may be wise to invite these editors to the review to ensure that their main concens have been addressed. If they haven't and they discover GA status has been restored they will just de-list it again, so it's best to sort out all of the problems at this stage. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a few 'minor' concerns you have brought up. Shall I rectify them now? Hallows Horcruxes 20:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
On a surface read the article looks a lot better, and my original concerns are addressed, so if it passes in the end that's fine by me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I have corrected Betty Logan's issue about the Half-Blood Prince paragraph holding information not related directly to Yates. Hallows Horcruxes 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope my contributions are worthwhile. :) I'm off to bed. If there are any more issues, then I am willing to correct them (or you can). Hallows Horcruxes 23:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your concern about the lead containing info on his personal life and that it's "not discussed in the article". There is nothing to discuss and nowhere else to place the information; the only information we have of his personal life is in the "Early life" section and the information in the lead does not fit there. "getsurrey.co.uk" is a reliable source as its a local media site powered by local newspapers in the Surrey area. "Casarotto" is a reliable source as it is the official creative agency that represents Yates, including reporting his career achievements (in this case, Deathly Hallows' success). Collider.com is a reliable source as it is a film news website. It also conducts various interviews with filmmakers and casts, including the interview with David Heyman. I removed some sources which I think are unrealiable, like "sugarcoveredquills", "sueperiorpics" and "quotelucy.com". Hallows Horcruxes 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I cut the "celebrated director" part as the information was not faithfully reflected in the source. To replace it, I added in a new detail which flows with the rest of the opening. In the near future, I'll put "His other works include" to follow up the first paragraph for it not to be too Harry Potter-heavy, therefore creating a balanced lead (which it is now, but even more so when post-Potter projects begin to surface.) Hallows Horcruxes 19:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I've addressed your issues regarding the prose to the best of my ability. I have also found reliable sources along the way and I found the removed quote in the reliable source (Film London), so I added it back into the quote box, killing two birds with one stone as they say! Hallows Horcruxes 10:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comingsoon.net is a reliable source as it is a website devoted to films, reporting official interviews/trailers/cast and crew information etc... It's owned by the media company CraveOnline. Swindonweb.com is a reliable source as it is a local website that reports and showcases local subjects, issues and events. In this case, the site held an interview with Yates in which he spoke about Cr8 Studios, a local studio complex. Hallows Horcruxes 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorted. Hallows Horcruxes 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Harry+Potter+last+goodbye/3848043/story.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
sir please make a new harry potter movies we all badky miss harry potter its a request from all childrens please make harry potter new movies please please please please sir please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.197.250.137 ( talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David Yates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)