Talk:Glorfindel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Notes below... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

...decided that it was a "somewhat random use" of a name.... - do you think he means that the name was inadvertently used twice? Is that clear in the source?

Yes. Reworded.

...Anger took the view that Tolkien's idea of an improved story for the character.. - is "improved" the right word here? More "explained"?

Reworded.

The last line of the Analysis should probably be further up in the section (maybe even touched on in the lead) - i.e. conjecture raised in section and then explained.

Moved, it fits well with the Don Anger material.

Try and avoid/minimise one-sentence paragraphs

Done.

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)