Talk:Thorkell (Vinland Saga)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Incipit.

• Explain what Jomsvikings are.
  • Done.
• "as a Jomsviking commander who later commanded". Repetition. Why later? And since he's a commander, shouldn't be obvious he commanded something? Explain better.
  • Revised
• "The voice actor found the early read of the series' writing interesting to read even one term that appeared in the work". Can you rewrite this sentence? It's quite confusing for me.
  • Removed
• "He enjoyed working with Yuto Uemura (Thorfinn) and Naoya Uchida (Askeladd) due to the dialogues the series has when their characters interact". Quite trivial.
  • Removed
• "Thorkell joins Floki's team to take down Vagn's side". Explain better and present these characters, please.
  • Done
• Same for Einar.
  • Done
• There's an overlink for Floki in "Role".
  • Done

@Tintor2:. That's all. I'll read Reception later. Good work.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: Revised. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Let's go.

• "Akio Otsuka's voice acting was praised by Yukimura.[2]" This is also quite trivial.
  • Removed.
• "The medievalist Maxime Danesin noted how the European Middle Ages are seen through the prism of Contemporary Japanese Literature noted Yukimura takes liberties".. Something's wrong there.
  • Reworded.
• "Yaledma Ayala Sepúlveda". Who is this? From the title of the source ("MA thesis"), are we sure this is a RS?
  • Removed.

@Tintor2: That's all.

@TeenAngels1234: Revised. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (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:

   Comment: Allright. Pretty good article. Well-written, with good sources and clear even for a non-VS fan like me. Good work. Pass.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)