Wikipedia

Talk:Goldberry/GA1

< Talk:Goldberry
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Amitchell125 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 15:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)Reply


Happy to review this article.

Thanks for taking it on. Chiswick Chap (talk)

Review comments

edit

References

edit
7.1 Primary
  • The author list should include Christopher Tolkien. (Ref 1)
Added.
  • Some of the locations are missing (Ref 1 in this section and elsewhere in References).
Added.
  • I would avoid the abbreviation ch. For ‘chapter’ (see MOS:ABBR).
It's throughout the project.
Understood. AM
7.2 Secondary
  • Ref 1 (Pantin) – amend the title (the original French name needs to be included).
Done.
  • Ref 6 (Hammond/Scull) is not formatted correctly. As it is a blog, could a better citation be found instead?.
It seems to be correct and complete, I've removed the note if that was the issue. The note was however right in saying these are major scholars, and we can trust their blog; other scholars do likewise.
Understood. AM
Added note; URL is redundant to DOI.
  • Ref 3 (Butterfield) Add 'subscription required'.
Added note.
  • Ref 6 (Hammond) is a blog and therefore unsuitable as a citation.
No, as above, Hammond is a major Tolkien scholar.
  • Ref 10 (Carruthers) Carruthers should be listed as the editor. 'I'm assuming In French' needs to be added.
Done.
Done.
  • Ref 17 (Enright) The url didn’t work for me. Is it a dead link?
Just checked again, it (the DOI link) works fine, but takes a moment to load.
Thanks. AM
I've done this for you though I don't agree with it, I was citing the printed book on my shelf.
  • Ref 21 (Hammond/Scull) can be wikilinked; the title needs to be slightly amended.
Done.
  • Ref 27 (in Finnish) is not properly cited.
Fixed.
Done.
  • Ref 32 (Bored of the Rings) needs to be formatted correctly.
Fixed.

More comments to follow. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lead section/Infobox

edit
  • Link George MacDonald.
Done.
  • from the works of author – 'from the works of the author'?
Added.
  • called is redundant.
Gone.
  • Shouldn't published in 1954 and 1955 be ‘first published in 1954 and 1955’, as they have been published many times?
Done.
  • Amend lyric to ‘lyric poem’ (linked to Lyric poetry). This also occurs in the text below the lead section.
Done.
Done.

1 Origins

edit
  • I would link Tolkien (with his initials included) the first time he appears in the main text of the article (see MOS:DL). Ditto Bombadil.
Done.
  • the river Withywindle within the Old Forest – move the link to where readers would expect it (Old Forest).
Done.
  • In a letter – the year would be useful here.
Added.
  • Frodo (+ Baggins) should be linked here and not further down in the article. Ditto The Fellowship of the Ring.
Done.
  • Who is Isabelle Pantin?
Glossed.
  • Link George MacDonald.
Done.

2 Appearances

edit
Done.
  • The last sentence is uncited.
Done.

3 Analysis

edit
  • Link Middle-earth.
Done.
  • Who are Ann McCauley, Leo Carruthers, Ruth Noel, Gene Hargrove, Taryne Jade Taylor, Christina Ljungberg, Melissa McCrory Hatcher, Ann McCauley Basso, Robert Chapman-Morales and John D. Rateliff? As they are listed in the References section whenever they are cited, are they notable enough to be also named in the text?
Scholars. Since we're directly attributing views to most of them one by one, it's hard to see how we can avoid naming them really. If we were to write "One scholar believed ... while another suggested ..." a heap of gnomes would at once decorate the article like the Trafalgar Square Christmas tree with a colourful array of interesting "who?" "what?" and "clarify" tags. So, generally best not. I've glossed some of them and removed one or two names where it was possible.
OK. AM
Done.
  • frequently proposed explanation – why frequently?
Gone.
  • It’s not clear to me why the article Nature is linked here, which imo discusses something else.
The link is to Mother Nature; glossed.
Looks better. AM
  • I would unlink Botticelli-like within the quote, as the link leads to a biography of an artist (and not a explanation of what the phrase means).
Done.
  • Tolkien presents her – amend to ‘Tolkien presented her’ (as he is deceased).
Edited.
  • Unlink J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia as it is a duplicated link.
Done.
  • The poetry looks a little odd in terms of the spacing, might using Template:Poem quote be better?
Done.

4 Adaptations

edit
Replaced image. (Actually, the Commons page confirms the file was reviewed in 2016, so it's pukka.)
  • Is the image notable, or is it simply a drawing by a devoted Tolkien fan?
Removed.
  • Unlink Old Man Willow; Old Forest twice (duplicated links).
Done.
Done.
  • Imo adaptation project can be deleted as redundant text.
Gone.
  • Some other adaptations – two are named, but are there others, as is implied by the text?
No such implication. Edited.
  • I'm not sure here, but I'm guessing MMORPG is used more than the full phrase, and could replace it.
Well, maybe, but this is a general encyclopedia.
Understood. AM
  • No actress was credited for the role. - Excessive detail?
Gone.

5 See also

edit
  • I’m unclear why Korrigan is listed – perhaps a small explanation could be added? (see MOS:ALSO).
Added.

6 Notes

edit
  • The note refers to an online publication, but this information might be better off as an external link.
It's certainly more useful here as it's where the reader can actually find the poem, next to where they might want to consult it.
Understood. AM
  • The poem title should be in italics.
Done.

8 Sources

edit
  • I’m confused about this section – if both books are sources, wouldn't they appear in the References section and not here?
No need, let's call it Bibliography, these are the two particularly-Bombadil texts.

On hold

edit

An nicely-written article, with issues that can easily be addressed. I'm putting it on hold for a week until 30 June to allow time for the issues raised to be sorted out. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, I think we're all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Passing

edit

All sorted, now at GA level, so happy to pass it. All the best, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goldberry/GA1&oldid=1030001351"