Talk:Elrond/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna review this.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Perfect article. Just a few things:

• • Thank you! Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it be better to reduce that quote to "Style of speech"?
  • Well, we have an article of some thousands of words; it is well within the limits of fair use to include a quotation of this kind. The 'Alas, no' speech is of clear importance in the book, and a key element of Tolkien's portrayal of Elrond's style and character. The accompanying text in the 'Style of speech' section discusses multiple words and phrases used in the quotation, such as "save", "to wield at will", and "That we now know too well.", not to mention "We cannot use the Ruling Ring." None of these actually make a great deal of sense on their own, nor do they individually say much about Elrond's character or style: but when assembled into the boxed quotation, they certainly do. Further, the section shows that not only do both Kullman and Shippey discuss this very quotation, at length: it is actually central to their argumentation, and to the section. The reader's understanding of the section (if not of the entire article) depends upon it. For those reasons, the quotation is clearly justified in this context. I suggest that anyone who reads carefully through the quotation and the section text will see the force of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would better introduce some names briefly. For example, "Dark Lord Sauron," or things like that.
  • Good idea, I've done that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

That's all.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• • That's very kind of you. However, before we finish, I think you should look at a sample of the 'Secondary' sources in the article and verify for yourself that they are relevant and say what the article claims that they do. It would also be wise to list the six Good Article criteria here, and to report that the article meets all of them one by one. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. I was going to do it anyway. In any case, I also verified the information from secondary sources, and it seems accurate. The primary ones, of course, also.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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:

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:

   Brief summa. Good prose. Sources are OK. Good images. Clear explanation.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)