Pet Peeve:
Comparing fantasy books to Harry Potter in reviews and blurbs though they bear absolutely nothing in common other than, say, enjoyment level or well-written prose rich in imagery.
Please. Gimme a break. Things are so much more complicated and Harry Potter is not some gold standard of comparison! In most cases it doesn't even make sense. Chances are good that someone else relatively famous in the field will have written something more compatible and comparable. There are issues of form, of purpose, of subgenre, of length, of magic type, of the structure and culture of the society featured… Study the fantasy genre a little harder, why don't you?!! I find your ignorance disturbing.
And no, don't try to feed me junk like Harry Potter reinvented the wheel or introduced something particularly new that was happily adopted by everyone afterwards and utterly changed the tropes of the genre. HP did great things and did them well, and made them accessible—with side effects like like larger word counts that editors were willing to publish—but not that. Nope nope nope. Or at least, if it's true, then you're going to have to argue a lot harder with evidence that I can refute without even looking something up, and show me that you respect the genre of fantasy you're writing about.