Talk:Ginny Weasley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ginny Weasley has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Harry Potter, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter universe. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as Class B on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit) Certainly close to Featured Article status - although it should perhaps go though the step of acquiring Good Article status first. This would enable editors to target more areas for improvement before this exalted level is proclaimed. The main concern I would have is the need for more third party content, verifiable of course and this with plenty of citations and references. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Tasks you can do: Novels WikiProject Announcements and open tasks (watch • edit • discuss) → Please help with tagging articles! This WikiProject now includes "Novels", "Novellas", "Novelettes" and "Short Stories" of narrative form! Critique (Featured Article): None current - "7 achieved / 2 removed" Review: Erast Fandorin Improve: Nineteen Eighty-Five • Vathek • Enderby Outside • The Runes of the Earth • The Giver • Crown of Shadows • More... Create: Black Cocktail • Blackthorn Winter • London, 1850 • The Fatal Eggs • More... Novel without Infobox (auto list): many novel articles do not have an infobox - and need one (auto generated list) - may need expansion of article too A new policy proposal has been started and this is to be seen at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles, please take a look at these and comment. This is a vital subject and all editors should consider the implications. These are NOT active yet, but could have wide reaching consequences. Please contribute your views. Our Collaboration Department is continuing with one more title Waverley (novel) for the current month. Get collaborating on the article and also look at nominating other titles to be considered. Pages that only exist as redirects: Men at Arms changes

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Ginny Weasley is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 10 December 2006

Contents 1 Newer Picture 2 Choice of Words 3 GA Review 4 GA Failed

[edit] Newer Picture

I think the article could use a newer picture. One where she is older or in her robes would be more appropriate I think, since she is now a major character in the series.

John Reaves 20:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of Words

How am I being negative? The word 'disreputable' means that they have rather a poor reputation in the wizarding world: partly because of their Bloodtraitor status, partly because of Arthur's plug fetish. I thought that Rowling had very thoroughly made it clear that, yes, they are superficially a nice family (even if they have a tendency to scream in public, bully Neville and other students, ostracise family members that don't agree with an old man who appears to going senile, ostracise friends of the family because they believe Rita Skeeter's trash, spout mysogynistic comments, allow themselves to be bought off with money and presents, behave appallingly towards a new prospective member of the family - and in the process totally ignore the fact that the son has chosen her as his wife, attempt to murder Slytherins in vanishing cabinets merely for attempting to take points, etc, etc, the list does go on), but that they aren't particularly well thought of in wizarding society. How would you define 'disreputable'? Michaelsanders 01:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As for close-knit: I'm not sure that that is appropriate (Percy is cut-off, the twins have an on-off relationship with their mother, Molly spends most of her time telling the kids off or telling Arthur to shut up about his muggle rubbish) and no-one appears to have given any thought to Bill whilst they were busily abusing Fleur... Michaelsanders 01:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would define 'disreputable' as not being respectable in character and having a negative reputation. The Weasley's are only viewed as "bloodtraitor" by a small sect of pure-blood wizards, most of whom dabble in the Dark Arts. Any reasonable person could deduct from the text of the series that they are portrayed as loyal, courageous, kind, accepting, etc. I hardly think that the opinion of a sector of wizarding society that essentially lives on the fringes of society is a valid one. All families have discontent, What mom doesn't tell of her children? The Twins squabbles are harldy anything serious. I'll give you the Percy fact, though the remaining family is close-knit. Molly's occasional comment to Arthur is hardly notable. After Bill was attacked by Fenrir Greyback and they found out he would retain scars for life, Fleur still stuck with him, and Molly accepted her.John Reaves 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But the Weasleys do have a negative reputation: not amongst us readers, who have seen them in private, but amongst wizarding society (Crouch hardly seemed keen on Arthur, and Bagman - who did like Arthur - seems to have based his mateyness on the fact that Mr Weasley was willing to accept a bribe in exchange for not charging Otto Bagman. In any case, we seem to be regarding the idea of reputation differently: I am taking it as 'opinion amongst their fellows, in particular the purebloods, which they are included amongst'; you are taking it as 'opinion amongst the readers', who for very obvious reasons are not part of wizarding society. For a realworld comparison, consider the various 'ladies (or men) of ill-repute' who have nonetheless been popular amongst readers (I can't think of any of the top of my head - I don't remember if Nancy in Oliver Twist is actually such a woman, but I think she is pretty popular amongst readers). But in any case, the opinion of the other purebloods (who still appear to be a dominant caste - the ministy was hardly in open rebellion over Malfoy's influence) is that they are bloodtraitors (or thus far, at least; we don't know what the Longbottom web thinks, except of Ron personally, and I suspect that if Neville's gran heard anything about the twins' bullying, it would not give her a good impression); on the rest of society, we have been led to believe that other wizards are rather scornful of the Weasley's because of Mr Weasley's blatant yet uniformed muggle fetish (and because they have a tendency to brawl in public). As for close-knit, I really disagree about that. By the sixth book, they have shown a degree of alliance together, partly because of Voldemort, partly because they are all scapegoating Percy. But in the first four books - where they are in their 'natural' state, they are quite clearly portrayed as factional - Molly and Percy vs the twins, twins vs Ron, twins vs Ginny, Ron vs Ginny, Molly vs Arthur, Arthur and the two eldest staying firmly out of it. How is that close knit, when there is a blatant amount of hostility between the various members?

I also think that there should be more mention of those occasional bouts of what I would term either nastiness or viciousness from Ginny (you are welcome to suggest an alternative term). She is unpleasant about Percy (despite his being the only family member willing to stand up for her in her first year); she is unnecessarily unpleasant about Fleur, and shows no regard at all for the fact that Bill wants to marry the woman (and we get no indication that he bothered to stick up for Fleur, or impress upon the family that she was his fiancee, so they were to stop criticising her); she is almost scientifically horrible to Ron, rubbing his nose in the fact that he has never had a girlfriend and that Harry and Hermione have both had relationships (despite the fact that she knows he gets horribly jealous of both of them, and is likely to have observed that he and Hermione both wanted to go to the Slug Club together, if not more), and deliberately hurts him emotionally (making disturbing comments about him supposedly having a crush on his aunt). That is a pattern of behaviour, of the sort you requested evidence for, and I think it ought to be referred to. Thanks. Michaelsanders 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly "viciousness", it's harmless sibling/teasing/joshing/etc. Percy has estranged himself from the entire family, she treats them just as the other do: with little regard except for the occasional disparaging remark. True, she did treat Fleur poorly, behind her back, but with the events of the attack on Bill, and Molly's acceptance of her as her future daughter-in-law, Ginny's stance should know be considered unknown. Her attacks on Ron were provoked by his older-brother jealousy/protectiveness comments and behavior. The view we see should be the view represented in the article, it is in keeping with canon and prevents articles being written in a in-universe style.

John Reaves 13:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Between Ginny and the three mentioned, it is both nasty and disproportionate - her reaction to Ron's mildly offensive comments about her was far more offensive (it was reminiscent of Morfin Gaunt's taunting of Merope). And how many 'close-knit' families have that amount of back-biting? Disfunctional seems to be the more generally applied term, appropriate or not. Broken home is another such term. I would really disagree with referring to them as a close-knit family. As for the use of the term 'disreputable', it is hardly essential for inclusion in this article, but I feel that it is nothing more than a statement of the family's status within wizarding society. Michaelsanders 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely you're not suggesting a relation to the Gaunts? That's what makes them "close-knit" or whatever term you'd like to use, that type of harmless interaction makes them the tight clan that they are. And you already know my views on "disreputable". John Reaves 14:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You do have an active imagination. I am not suggesting any OR kinship between the Gaunts and the Weasleys. I am pointing out that few people would hesitate to condemn Morfin, yet similar behaviour from Ginny does not, according to yourself, even merit the term 'nasty'. And no, the behaviour between the Weasley family members does not make them a tight clan, and it is not harmless. It is damaging destructve: look at the state of affairs prior to the end of GOF, look at how easily they all slung Percy out, largely through the groundwork laid in the first four books. Look at how disunited and argumentative, and less than satisfied they were in the first four books, before they went into their fear huddle. Consider Ron and Molly's relationship (sandwiches she knows he hates the first time ever he leaves home at eleven, jumpers she knows he hates every christmas - what, she couldn't buy a different coloured wool, in between making Harry his elaborate jerseys? -, doesn't bother to buy him or find him a new wand - he didn't tell her it was broken, but the school would have written, he couldn't do his lessons properly with that thing - robes which she does nothing to make more amenable, instead handing them to him in a 'sod you' attitude whilst going to a great deal of trouble to buy Harry robes she thinks will suit him), which only changes when he becomes a prefect and she sees him as a Percy alternative, a new child to play as favourite. Consider that Bill and Charlie went as far from home as possible as soon as they left Hogwarts, and that Bill only returned when he was called up by Dumbledore (and Charlie still managed to wiggle out of returning). That is not a happy family, that is not a tight knit or united family, that is a supremely damaged family, one which is only waiting for all the kids to leave home before it ends up disintegrating into a disparate group of people who only meet at Christmas. Actually give it real consideration - can you think of any family in real life who act like the Weasleys and yet are described as happy or close-knit? Because I cannot. Michaelsanders 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How are they similar? Ginny's behavior is hardly equivalent to Morfin's, Ginny has never terrified and torturedo Ron to the point that Morfin did to Merope. Percy ostacized himself, and only after repeated attempts of reconciliation did the family, especially Molly, give up hope. These are minor squabbles, hardly the types of things that tear familes apart. Perhaps you are forgetting that they are poor? Harry owned no robes, and his were most likely paid for by hi emmense fortune. Romania and Egypt are hardly "as far from home as possible" It has been stated that Bill and Charlie have a difficult time getting away from work, and they probably lack the financial means needed for frequent travel. Fortunately, this is a work of fiction, and somehow the Weasley's maintain a close-knit relationship through all thier "hardship." John Reaves 15:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Percy walked out, yes. They did nothing to stop him, instead seeming to gloat that he was gone ('"I think we're well shot of him", said George, with an uncharacteristically ugly look on his face' - well, isn't that loving and close-knit?). They did little to bring him back, with the exception of Molly. I am not forgetting that they are poor at all. The robes issue is not relevant because he got *better* robes, but because Molly took the trouble to choose them carefully, so that he could look his best. By contrast, giving Ron a pair of robes which were not only second hand (so what) but ugly (that was the *best* the shops had?), and which she clearly expended no time on to make at all more presentable, even when Ron told her that they were ugly (Ron managed to get them looking more presentable using a severing charm. Molly couldn't - or didn't - even do that? The woman is a skilled knitter, she'll have enough basic sewing skills to make the things more presentable). In any case, if a mother expends more care, attention and effort on her son's friend than the son himself, then something is very wrong. Rumania and Egypt - the dragons are kept in the wilds of Rumania, making it very difficult, even without the expense, for regular visits (given that there are Welsh and Hebridean dragons, if they really were so close-knit, Charlie could have worked with those, and been much nearer). Egypt, we don't know about. We do know that it is too far for it to be anything more than an occasional holiday. That doesn't sound close knit. And what about you? How do you reason that this perenially arguing, unhappy, factional family is close-knit? At all?

Lets keep this on the Weasley family page. I've already answered there. It's been established that dragons are kept in seculded sanctuaries and are strictly controlled. We getting into canon issues that cannot be verified. He took a job doing what he liked, this hardly escaping his family. John Reaves 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Shoot, I know I wrote up a big long review of this article when I read it, but it doesn't seem to have been saved. The last section the Half Blood Prince needs to worked on, particularly the paragraph wherein Ron gets poisoned. I personally think there needs to be some citations, particularly in some of the less known facts. There were some other observations that I had, but I'm going to have to re-read the article to make them. Her dating Michael Cronner occurred in which book? I'll try to get back to this article to give you more of a critique, but those were the points that I remember off the top of my head.Balloonman 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article is way better than what it was a few months ago but ALL of the quotes form the books need to be refrenced (with page numbers). Dalf | Talk 02:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

I am sorry to say that I failed Ginny Weasley for GA. Here the reasons as of WP:WIAGA.

1. Well written: neutral - the opening section could be better as of WP:LEAD.
2. Verifiable: FAIL - far too little references. Much of the text is borderline WP:NOR. -
3. Broad: FAIL - no words about real-life phenonema, such as e.g. on Shipping_(fandom). Also, the article is mostly firmly in-universe, thus violating WP:WAF, which article about fiction must adhere to. Also, WP:NOT dictates "wikipedia is not a plot summary", which most of the article unfortunately is. If a Wikipedian comes and slashes 90% of the "Role in the books" out, you will have a hard time arguing against her/ him.
4. NPOV: Pass.
5. Stable: Pass.
6. Images: FAIL - where is the fair use rationale of the Bonnie Wright picture? See e.g. Scarlett Johansson how to do it correctly. Weak pass - ok for now, but I am wary of images without explicit Fair Use rationale, especially in GAs or FAs
7. Misc: please read WP:WAF carefully before renominating, especially WP:WAF#Out-of-universe_perspective
8. Misc2: also WP:CITET (cite book) should be applied. I really would like to see facts backed up by lines like (X happens) "HP4: p 199-210" or "Y happens) "HP2: p.21-25" or such.
9. Misc3: this article was on hold for (edit) 7 days, but no major improvements (referencing!) were made

Sorry, but this article still needs work before becoming a GA. Still, happy wiki-ing! —Onomatopoeia 15:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Can you give some more detail here? I have not worked on this article in a while and when I did it was mostly deleting stuff that was inapproprate but the opening seems to be pretty good at the moment.
2. I agree 100% in addition to what I said above about all of the quotes or refrences to the books need to have ref tags and have page numbers there is a small amouhnt of as you say borderling litrary criticism that nees to be refrenced (but not as bad as it use to be)
3. I had the same thought about the shippign stuff. I think it was removed because it was bate for people who wanted to editoralize, and made NPOV hard. I think there are a few reputable fan sites (especially the ones that JKR has called out as good) which are firmly established that can be used as good secondary sources for this. There are a number of other fan sites that can be (very carfully) used as primary sources but that is a bit tricky and hard to keep people in line. Regardless the materal needs to be covered or the article is incompete. I disagree about the role in the books stuff being in danger, it is based almost completely in the facts of "there were the scenes she was in" and thre is a minimum litrary criticism (Which woudl be in danger) if someone simply adds page numbers to everythign in quotation marks or secene refrences then that shoudl be fine.
4. I was suprised at how NPOV it manged to be though it did so by simply removing the sections that were problematic. Once the coverate is restored this one might be a problem.
5. Ok
6. I am annoyed by the use of the movie actors pictures for Harry Potter charcter articles. The move version of hte univers is diffrent in amny ways from the books and we really should get some wikipedian to provide some images with proper copyright that are not photographs of actors. I would not want any harry potter article as GA if it is exclusivly illastrated with pictures from the movies or pictures of the actors form the movies.
7. Can you give some examples of the Out-of-Univers standard that you feel have been violated? This article talks about her role in the books in terms of the main character, it is never confusing about what is real and what is not. Everything is written in terms of scenes and chapters. If there is a problem here it is small.
8. Amen!!
9. The refrenceing is the biggets problem IMHO.

Dalf | Talk 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could someone please give examples of what needs citations from the book? Tagging them in the article (or at least some) would be useful. Also, examples for formating the citations. Seems to me that having them all inline would clutter the page. Perhaps a footnote type format would be better. Also, thanks for the reviews. John Reaves 06:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As of WP:LEAD, I can demand for a mid-length article that it limits itself to 2 concise paragraphs. It also contains a plot spoiler (looks ugly); the Weasley family info should come lower, and not in the lead. As of WP:WAF, please apply a real-life POV: e.g. "In 1997, K.K. Rowling wrote (HP1) and introduces Ginny as the younger sister of Ronald (ref => add chapter, and if you add pages, also version, British or American, as page numbers differ)". To give a more elaborate example, here how I would start the HP2 section:

In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998), Rowling fleshes out the character of Ginny. Rowling involves her more, letting her attending Hogwarts, a year after Harry and her brother Ron. While she appears to play a mostly behind-the-scenes role in the book — looking mysteriously ill(ref: HP2, chapter x) and providing light humour with her obvious crush on Harry —(ref: HP2, chapter x), Rowling established that Ginny turns out to be behind the year's biggest mystery, a series of unexplained attacks that leave several Muggle-born students petrified. Rowling lets Harry eventually discover that a magical school diary made by Tom Riddle (the young Lord Voldemort) has been possessing her in order to access the Chamber of Secrets and unleash a Basilisk on the school.(ref: HP2, chapter x)

For the referencing, please use WP:CITET. Hope I could help. The article has a good core, and we all look forward to award that green cross if it makes that magical step from B- to GA-class. —Onomatopoeia 09:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions on which country's version to use? John Reaves 23:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, but it's better to either stick to one publisher (which would open up a can of worms), or (IMHO better) just limit the reference precision to chapter references rather rather than to page references. IMHO, it's better to have a 20-something-page scope where you can read XYZ up, than an imprecise page scope or a too broad book scope (nobody will read 700+ pages of book just to find out one trait). —Onomatopoeia 08:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)