Talk:Galadriel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead

• The aliases don't seem to be sourced.

And they're extremely obscure, too. Let's do without them.

• Is there a source for [ɡaˈladri.ɛl]?

I don't think so. The phonetics people add these to tens of thousands of articles without citations. We can remove it if you're concerned.

Having looked at a random sample of fictional character FAs and GAs, I think it's fine to keep it in. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Fictional biography

• "Stories of Galadriel's life prior to The Lord of the Rings" - I think should be something like "Stories of Galadriel's life prior to the events in The Lord of the Rings" (but hopefully more elegantly phrased than I managed there)

Reworded.

• "sketched by Tolkien in The Road Goes Ever On" needs a source - The Silmarillion is the only source used in the paragraph.

Cited.

• "According to some accounts" consider slight reword, so it's even clearer that it's within the fictional universe that these accounts exist, rather than in the "real world". If this is changed, probably once is enough rather than at each mention of accounts.

Done.

• I was going to suggest removing "beautiful" from the description of her hair, but after looking at the description in Unfinished Tales I'm happy for it to be retained.

Noted. It's certainly important.

• Remove the page reference after "... remain unfriends forever" as no particular edition is cited. (Citing the chapter seems appropriate.)

Done.

• "Her character was similarly a blend of.." - I think "similarly" can be removed.

Done.

• Reword "won Gimli's heart forever" to be less poetic and more prosaic.

Done.

Relationships

• No source is cited for the family tree.

Done.

Reception

• I suggest adding brief description of what The Early South English Legendary is, or a wikilink if possible. (I'm not sure whether it's the South English Legendary)

Yes it is, linked and glossed.

Legacy in music

• Citations are needed for the Britten and Oldfield songs.

Done.

Discogs ins't regarded as a reliable source. How about this and this for the Cliff Richard track? I checked Rock's Backpages and the ProQuest Music Periodicals Database in vain to try to verify the Oldfield info, but drew a blank. The closest I could dig up was this which doesn't support the whole line in the article.

Adaptations

• First para does not include citations.

Added.

• Amazon shouldn't be used as a source except in some particular circumstances (WP:RSPSOURCES). Looks to me like the Harl source is adequate on its own here.

Removed.

Images (inc. Map)

• I'm not sure that the Wife of Bath picture adds much - what's the rationale for including it?

Curiosity, mainly, but we don't need it.

• The Lady of Shalott file page has a note that includes "While Commons policy accepts the use of this media, one or more third parties have made copyright claims against Wikimedia Commons in relation to the work from which this is sourced or a purely mechanical reproduction thereof". However, reading the whole page, I believe it's use here is OK.

Noted.

Plagiarism and Copyvio check

• There's a large overlap with a particular page, but this is a combination of direct quotes, and a lift from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. (Based on looking at versions of the article from before the other page was published.)

Noted.

Chiswick Chap - thanks for your work on the article. It's well written, well structured, and suitably comprehensive as far as I'm concerned. My comments are above - I didn't find any significant issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses Chiswick Chap. The only pending issue is about the use of Discogs as a source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Well, we're barely relying on it; it's just reporting what is on the album labels, for which it's a far more accessible source than the (plastic) originals. If you'd rather we left out the accessible links and used "cite media" instead, that's easily done - all it achieves is the discarding of navigational help. The songs are not at all important to the article so we can also just drop the mentions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Looking at past discussions, it seems to me that there is a clearly established consensus that Discogs should not be used as a source. (E.g. see WP:NOTRSMUSIC). The sources I gave above are not paywalled and, I think, support the Cliff Richard info as is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, done that then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm happy to pass this for GA now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)