Talk:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry Potter is a British made film![edit]

Do some people need to be told that Harry Potter is a british made film, not american!

I can understand the mix up however, because Chris Columbus (who directed the first two films) is a well known American director. And the third movie was directed by a Mexican (Alfonso Cauron). Strange choice of directors for a British made film I must say :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 20:24:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Sir Cadogan's sword[edit]

Cadogan's sword strongly resembles the Cold Steel brand Zweihander,even down ring hilt, is there any info that the prop is a Cold Steel brand sword? I feel like it should be added in trivia.

Two Pictures[edit]

Are thgese pictures really neede (at the top of page ,one of harry in lupins office and one of lupins office) how are they needed? user:CoolChris99

"Suggested" romance between Lupin and Sirius[edit]

User 68.45.87.14 maintains that the "Alterations from the Book" include a note reading "A romance is suggested between Remus Lupin and Sirius Black." His/her justification is as follows:

Which is why he [presumably Gary Oldman or David Thewlis] refered to Remus as "everyone's favorite gay uncle" in interview and in cast instruction, and approved the "married couple" line [a passing line said by Snape, where he describes Lupin and Sirius as "quarrelling like an old married couple"] and the lines about "this is not your heart" etc.... :P

What should be done about this?

WHAT!?!?? Dan-the-man278 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Other Acting Change[edit]

It is not important enough to force onto the main page, but there is one other acting change of note from the first film. The Fat Lady on the door of the Gryffindor wing of Hogwarts was played by Elizabeth Spriggs in the first film. In this movie Dawn French takes over the role.MarnetteD | Talk 22:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional text[edit]

A well-meaning newbie created a new page for this movie (adding a full stop to the title). Here is the text they created.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is the third book and film of the Harry Potter series. Azkaban ( the name may be a parody of "Alcatraz") is the island prison where lawbreaking wizards (and often innocent wizards and witches who have been falsely accused and cleverly framed) are imprisoned and tortured by demons called Dementors. At the beginning of the story, Harry is imprisoned, as usual, at the home of his brutish foster parents, the Dursleys, who are visited by an obnoxious relative who insults Harry's dead parents with egregious insensitivity and cruelty. In his anger and his shame, Harry releases wild magic without consciously meaning to, and his evil aunt is blown up like a balloon and drifts, terrified, up into the air. Harry runs away from his "home" that is no home, and soon discovers the Magic Bus called the "Knight Bus." He also becomes acquainted with a colorful character called Stan Shunpike. The family name must be due to a propensity to run around turnpikes to avoid paying tolls. In the movie, but not the book, the Knight Bus is also home to a talkative shrunken head. The movie also boasts a rousing performance of "Double, double, toil and trouble," which was recorded by William Shakespeare in Macbeth but is now revealed to be an old traditional folk song of witches and wizards, older than Shakespeare. "Something wicked this way comes," the Hogwart's Choir (which exists in the movies but not the books) sings. The Ministry of Magic fears that Sirius Black, a convict escaped from Azkaban, is out to murder Harry. Because of this concern, the Ministry is quick to forgive Harry for the small matter involving his cruel aunt, whose situation is quietly and unobtrusively mended. Resuming his Magic studies, Harry is the first and only student to win the respect of Buckbeak the Hippogryph. The flight of this fabulous and fantastic (in every sense of these words) creature, with Harry on his back, over Hogwart's castle and over a magnificent lake, is one of the most exhilarating scenes in the history of cinema.

The new page has been deleted. Manning 00:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"Deviations from the book"[edit]

This section is getting out of hand. Is it important that the backstory about Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs isn't explained? Yes. Is it important that in the film Harry didn't get a chance to reply to Sirius' request to live with him? No. (Posted by User:67.171.180.209 11:04, 1 September 2005, Sign your posts on talk pages)

I disagree; Harry's anxious answer in the book made it clear he did not like the Dursleys; This section could be made into a seperate page, but not destroyed --Luckybeargod 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original poster that the section needs some work. I suggest some thoughtful condensing to combine some of the more complex changes. For example, the Three Broomsticks scene is simply staged differently between the book and the movie. And the numerous small changes to Lupin's boggart instruction. And the missing explanation about Moony, Wormtail, Proudfoot, and Prongs. Each of these topics is currently covered by multiple bullet points that are in random places in the list. We don't have to be held to list form. In cases like these, paragraphs would probably make more sense to a reader.
Wikibooks is the better place for an unabridged list of changes between the books and movies.
(Also: It's clear Harry doesn't like the Dursleys (he runs away at the beginning) and that he wants to go with Sirius (he tells him so near the end of the film).) --Mrwojo 03:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, whatever changes were made, this section now does not explain enough. It says what is different in the film but often doesn't explain how. For example: "The connection between Harry's parents and the Marauder's map is only briefly mentioned..." And in the book, what? Do they use longer sentences to make it less brief, or is there an actual explanation? I believe that, for this section to justify its existence it should be more than just a simply list. Otherwise it should be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.209.61 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Professor Flitwick"[edit]

Should it be noted here that Professor Flitwick's appearance was changed drastically? I noticed it watching the fourth movie tonight, and though researched on the boards on IMDb. While in the first two movies, Flitwick was wrinkly and had white hair, in the third and forth he was younger, with black hair. Just a note that might wasnt to be added, either here (where the change first took place, not that I can recall seeing Flitwick in this movie) or on the page for GoF. - chicken_queen

While played by the same actor the character in this movie is not listed as "Professor Flitwick" but simply "Wizard". It is in the later movies that this character became Professor Flitwick. It is assumed, but not official, that the character in this movie is in fact Professor Flitwick. I guess just with a facelift (a magical one)!

References[edit]

Well at a guess, it's a reference to the form that Harry's Patronus takes when it charges down the dementors from the other side of the lake i.e a Stag. It's been a while since I saw Princess Mononoke, but didn't the Forest Spirit appear as a Stag. Mind you I think there is a homage to Titanic in there as well. When Harry rides on the back of Buckbeak, there is a definite Leonardo pose. I wonder if this is a recurring theme in the HP films. I thought Harry and Ron's recurring "Oh No" in the flying Ford Anglia in Chamber of Secrets parodied Bill and Ted's journey but that's just me! Essexgirlbecky (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the Film[edit]

I was wondering if it might be a good idea to have a section on criticism of the film, epecially since there was a new director and a new Dumbledore actor.

Disagree. In fact, I feel the article goes on about differences to the book and stuff that only harry potter fans actually care about too much. The majority of people who watched this film won't have read the book. Now, PS/COS definately had criticism aimed at them but PoA got good reviews. Criticisms such as "they didn't tell the marauders backstory" and such like are only issues with harry potter fans, and even then they really shouldn't be. Such backstory was not needed. Besides, in that instance it's hinted towards so often that most people can work it out. 82.6.67.134 09:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Cf[reply]
Chatty material removed - we're here to discuss the article, not the movie. Critical response is generally OK in a film article as long as it presents an accurate picture of the overall response and is well sourced. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Size[edit]

The plot size for this article is violating the standard summary for Wikipedia. The way to remedy this is merging the Plot and the Summary sections, and having about two paragraphs briefly detailing the main points of the story. If no one replies, I'll go ahead and make the changes. I want to make sure no one has a problem with it. - Raditzu 02:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. We need a little bit about the plot and summary at least though. ForestH2 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, Raditzu see Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. The plot there is my suggestion for the plot here to take shape. Treebark 22:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to use your spaces, people. I'll make the changes soon. - Raditzu 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh actully what do you mean spaces? I think we need to think about making the plot a little longer than the Goblet of Fire which should also be expanded. Treebark 14:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the third point. Anyway, I just rewatched POA so now I'll try to summarize it. Granted, it won't be perfect, but it's a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raditzu (talk • contribs)

Ian Brown in the Film?[edit]

Hmm, maybe I just forgot, but I don't recall Ian Brown making a cameo in the film, reading A Brief History of Time in the Leaky Cauldron. Maybe the scene was deleted in the American version? Hmm... ←T•h•e R.S.J.→ 14:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was. When Harry meets Mrs. Weasley and Mr. Weasley in the Leaky Cauldron that's where Ian Brown is, I think. They are about to have a meal, and they are sitting down and I think I recall Ian coming into the picture, though I can't be sure. ForestH2 t/c 15:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is - the scene was not deleted - at least in the 2-disc widescreen DVD version. A screen shot of the scene is shown in the Trivia section of the main article. --T-dot 15:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought. ForestH2 t/c
Okay, I've seen the movie recently, and Ian Brown appears when Harry comes in the Leaky Cauldron after he gets off the Knight Bus... Thanks for clarifying this! — •The RSJ• (Main Hub - Rants) 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2.35:1 -> 2.40:1 aspect ratio source[edit]

The following trivia point was recently added:

  • This was the first Harry Potter movie (and later Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) to be filmed in 2.40.1 Widescreen. The First two were filmed in 2.35.1 Widescreen.

Do we have a source for this? According to aspect ratio (image)#Previous and presently used aspect ratios, "modern anamorphic productions are actually 2.39, but often referred to as 2.35 anyway, due to old convention" and that 2.39:1 is "Sometimes rounded up to 2.40." --Mrwojo 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb says all were in 2.35: PS, CoS, PoA, GoF. I've removed it from the article. --Mrwojo 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

candy[edit]

In a deleted scene, Harry, Hermione, and Ron are talking about Hogsmede, and Harry eats a Honydukes candy, but whilst he does, Ron says, "Don't! those make you--," and after Harry eats it he winces and laughs or something. Any idea on what it did to him? Therequiembellishere 23:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed pretty obvious to me that it was an orgasm, or something of that nature. Mdiamante 02:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were going to be special effects added to the footage, but, since it got deleted, no special effects were made upon it. 70.243.154.57 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistencies[edit]

I added a Book to Movie inconsistencies section to this article. Some parts of the trivia could be moved to here and the list of inconsistencies is likely not finished. Please help! Leemorrison 23:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an (overly-long) article on this: Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. --Mrwojo 03:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, alright then, didn't realise that. I'll take the section down. Leemorrison 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something wicked this way comes[edit]

Something wicked this way comes. Hmmm. Now where have I heard that before. Oh yeah, its the name of that famous Ray Bradbury book and movie. Also in Shaksphere's MacBeth.

(Should we link it to the MacBeth article? Actually... that article doesn't say anything about "double double toil and trouble")

I think it should be linked to the Macbeth article- because there were other Macbeth references in the Harry Potter movies, including the school song "double double toil and trouble" (can't remember which movie that was...it MIGHT have been this one...); and plus it is very likely that the book you speak of was named after the Macbeth quote. J.K. Rowling also seems to be interested in the play Macbeth to an extent, judging on a couple of refrences to it on her website. Leemorrison 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark as a blackboard[edit]

> This film is considered the turning point in the Harry Potter films series, taking on a darker tone than the previous two. <

That sounds very POV. HP2CoS was already dark and scary.

Edit Summery[edit]

Sorry about my random edit summery, wrong thing on the clipboard. Should be "rv linkspam".

Article relevancy[edit]

This article seems overly critical of the film, as if one if its critics has infiltrated the page and inserted their own views. The whole "Comparison to preceding films in the Harry Potter series" section seems rather messy and a tad one-sided - while its nice and informative to note differences, the tone here is negative almost to the point of impartial. Discussion of the darker plot also gets a bit repetitive. Is this redundant text the sort of thing we want in an encyclopedia? Just how necessary is it that we know so much of what "fans" did or didn't like in an article that's primarily supposed to document the actual film? The article is padded with criticism, while the "Production" section requires a lot of expansion. No offence to the original author (I don't know who it is - I haven't had time to look through the history), but could someone a bit more qualified than myself perhaps fix this page? (Keeping in mind how trim the articles regarding films 1, 2 and 4 are.) (I'm also aware that some of what I have said is covered and above and is, ironically, redundant. Sorry.) --Steve1138 00:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Much of this article has a negative tone. I attempted to balance tone and tidy up the continuity section, and am going to have a go at the Synopsis, which seems (no offense to the original writer) overly detailed, and incomplete. ZouBEini 01:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Director vs writer[edit]

I agree that the some of the plot is murky. Part of the problem is that even when the scriptwriter includes exposition, the director distracts the audience's attention with busywork in the screen as if he is bored by it. When Fudge explains to Harry that he has settled the Aunt Marge matter, the camera is on Fudge's hunchback servant making faces. Later, when McGonagall explains the crucial relationship between Pettigrew, Black, and elder Potters, the camera focuses on Fudge peering at the "invisible" Harry. And Hermione's possession of a time spell (and why she kept it secret) was completely unexplained, making it a crude DEUS EX MACHINA device. As a result I personally would rank HP III below HP I. CharlesTheBold 01:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"And Hermione's possession of a time spell (and why she kept it secret) was completely unexplained, making it a crude DEUS EX MACHINA device." I seem to recall, in the movie, Hermione explained that the Time-Turner was how she had been getting to classes all year. And more importantly, I thought this page was for discussion on improvement of the article, not criticism of the film, and definitely not for personal rankings. Sorry. 213.94.134.4 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis[edit]

I replaced the long, detailed but somewhat rambling and incomplete synopsis with a brief version, more in keeping with that of the other films. ZouBEini 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this just my opinion...?[edit]

Erm, is it just me, or is everyone else thinking that the comparisons section needs a complete rewrite (or something close to it)...? PS. That wasn't me volunteering :) Dan-the-man278 19:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details in film[edit]

I would like to know what things were put into the third film, which apparently foreshadow events in this book. Shouldn't these be mentioned?

Is there a web page where this mentioned? That could be added as an alternative. Dewarw 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JK Rowling Mentions...[edit]

I'm pretty sure it was in the DVD extras to this film (been a while since I last saw it) - failing that it was for the second film. Anyway, there was an interview with JK Rowling which included her comment about that something was unintentially added to the film by the film makers, which would appear deliberate once the sixth book came out (or words to that effect). Does anyone know what that was referring to, and would it be considered sufficient to include in the main article? StephenBuxton 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, go to beyondhogwarts.com. This has 5 possible points in the film that JKR could have been talking about. Dewarw 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually, i think what she said was that scenes not intended to make the final cut were in the production version of the film and that they would forecast what the result of book 7 would be. other than wormtail repaying his life debt, i cannot see what JK was talking about now that i've read book 7. 64.91.201.195 23:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Ron and Hermione's grabbing each other's arms (when Buckbeak stood on his hind legs) then quickly pulling away more closely hinted at their future relationship than Rowling had intended in the book.
It should also be considered that things Rowling mentioned may not have been cut from the POA movie, but from the Deathly Hallows book - she has admitted that comments made in interviews (for example, a previously unmagical character will use magic) were not all followed up in the finished version. Steve1138 01:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I belive the biggest hint, was Severus pulling the trio behind himself when Lupin turned into wolf form, also the Ron grabbing Hermiones arm thing...
We want to be careful about discussing here, as this isn't a forum. I think until JKR actually comes out and says something, any mention of what was foreshadowed would be original research. That being said, it was NOT Ron and Hermione. That was hinted at in the books as well. Anakinjmt (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

time-turner[edit]

what would have happened if H&H didn't get back to the hospital wing in time? dumbledore mentions that "the consequences are too ghastly to discuss". would they have two harrys and two hermiones walking around forever? 64.91.201.195 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think the same thing would just happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over

I don't know, JK Rowling has said nothing about this. For me, there's no problem if Harry and Hermione didn't return in time to the hospital wing. The other Harry and Hermione would go back in time, but the future Harry and Hermione would be on their way. Where is the problem?
I think Dumbledore was reffering that they are supposed to be in the hospital wing, so nobody must see them outside. If this reason is not, well, then I don't know what it is. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a direct allusion to completing their mission... if they didn't get back on time then Sirius wouldn't be saved as he was out of time as Dumbledore spoke. That simple. // 24.62.190.234 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whomping willow[edit]

it just me or does it seem like the whomping willow is in a different spot in prisoner of azkaban then in the chamber of secrets when they crash into it.

Yes, it is in a different place. It seems to me that in the films there are two Whomping Willows, but of course, everybody would say no to this. But this would be the only thing that would make sense to why the Whomping Willow is in a different spot.--WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hagrid's hut moves from film to film. It's the same tree, they just changed the location of it. If you read the books, you read it's the same tree. They just decided to move it. It could also be because you see the tree only at night in CoS, whereas in PoA you see it during the day as well as at night. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's the same tree, I've read the books. However, again I say, the only thing that would explain why the Whomping Willow is in a different spot would be that there are two Whomping Willows. Since the Whomping Willow is supposed to connect the Shrieking Shack, it could have not changed places. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 15:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood, and new directors don't feel all that interested in such minutia if it costs money in the current film. Simple... follow the money! // 24.62.190.234 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in Double Trouble[edit]

The article is a copyright violation with 2-3 sentences of unsourced information that's probably OR. Should be redirected here. Judgesurreal777 06:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article has enough OR as is, so a simple redirecting should be the best option. Gran2 06:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nearly nominated that article for deletion when I came across it. Aredirect is more than reasonable. faithless (speak) 06:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes much more sense to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack). --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, lets merge it there. Judgesurreal777 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graveyard?[edit]

Under filming it says that the abscence of a graveyard plays an important role in the sixth book, any ideas what this is referring to? 121.91.20.241 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Produced by Mark Radcliffe?[edit]

Someone asked me whether producer Mark Radcliffe was related in any way to Daniel. To the best of my knowledge the answer is no. Clicking on the link on the related page leads to Mark Radcliffe the Radio 1 DJ, but Mark Radcliffe the film producer is a different person c.f. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0705366/ for Mark A Radcliffe who also produced Mrs Doubtfire, Stepmom and Jingle All the Way amongst others Essexgirlbecky (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

film revenues - figures not adjusted for inflation[edit]

It's fairly meaningless to say that films break records for revenues when they are not adjusted for inflation. Films each year will always then break records. For an encyclopedia you need to cite actual figures, not just ones that sound good. Please amend. Spanglej (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Editon[edit]

Should we mention the new DVD Ultimate Edition thing that recently came out? I've found a review here.

Cast Changes[edit]

See [2]. Evil Genius77 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation for Essays in Development[edit]

I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but there's an interview with all three main characters where they confirm the whole essays thing. How do I link to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.9.148 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd, the info was originally in the cast section but was removed and is no highly out of place in the media of director discussion... anyway, I've fixed it. Thanks (feel free to edit the prose). Gran2 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical errors in Plot section ?[edit]

There seems to be several errors in grammatical style in the plot section, almost as if certain sentences have been translated from a foreign language by a non-native english speaker. Also, certain plot points are not exactly the same as in the film, but seem more as if they were taken from the book (and not the film). Strange . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.66.195 (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last film to be released in VHS?[edit]

I remember a VHS of Goblet of Fire on a shelf back in 2006 here in New Zealand... 202.154.131.183 (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bluesphere (talk · contribs) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll take over this GA review. After a thorough examination of the article, here's what I have to say about it.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Everything's fine here.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The lead doesn't provide a summary about the film's production stage. There should be at least an overview on how did the process in making this film come about. Also, the lead doesn't have to be supported with references as they are cited elsewhere in the article.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    There are a decent amount of dead refs; six to be exact. I also notice seven refs (cite 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) are not using inline citations.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    I notice cite #6 was retrieved from IMDb. WP:CITEIMDB warns editors on citing this website since, like Wikipedia, it's a user-generated website. Cite #8 is retrieved from BuzzFeed. Buzzfeed appears to be a venue for self-publishing and a trivia blog, thus unreliable.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Lots of unreferenced claims, with the "Production" section being one of them. This is a red flag for possible original research. As you can see in the "critical reception" subsection, one claim is even tagged as unsourced.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    28.6% confidence according to the copyvio detector. So we're good here.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Not really sure since these claims Prisoner of Azkaban earned notable critical acclaim and is often regarded by fans and critics as the best film in the franchise. as well as Despite its successful box office run, Azkaban is the lowest-grossing Harry Potter film (all the others have grossed more than US$875 million worldwide) and the lowest-grossing film of J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World Series. are unsourced.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    While I thoroughly examined the article for this review, I noticed in the article's edit history that you are not a main contributor to it. I would like to gently remind you good article best practices: "While anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, it is highly preferable that nominators have contributed significantly and are familiar with the article's subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination." But you're in luck because this will give you an opportunity to fix the issues raised in the article. But for now, this is a fail. There's just a decent amount of work need to be done for this to be put on hold. Please do not let this discourage you and keep up the hard work. Thank you. Bluesphere 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film). 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's aunt?[edit]

The sister of an aunt is still referred to as an Aunt, so this is the correct definition. Also, the proposed change is not correct, as it says "When the Dursley's Aunt Marge verbally abuses Harry and Harry's parents..." - Marge is (as you point out) Vernon's sister, so she is not "the Dursley's Aunt Marge" at all.

Finally, as this change has been contested, it's better to discuss rather than keep reverting and risk edit warring. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Dursley is Harry's uncle just because he's married to Petunia. Any other sibling of Petunia's would be Harry's aunt or uncle, but any sibling of Vernon's —as Marge is— would not. That said, she is still Dudley's aunt, so we could just change "Harry's Aunt Marge", which is incorrect, to "Dudley's Aunt Marge". El Millo (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation for Peter Pettigrew?[edit]

Earlier, I removed the mistaken link on this page for Peter Pettigrew. Now, I think the better solution would be a disambiguation page for Peter Pettigrew, but I don't know how to do that, especially since this Peter Pettigrew doesn't have its own page, only an entry on the Death Eater page. --Rodney1h (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a disambiguation at the top of Peter Pettigrew using the {{About}} template. El Millo (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Prisoner_of_Azkaban_(film)&oldid=1202222311"