Talk:Adrift (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: OlifanofmrTennant (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 February 2025 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

Lead

• Clarify that episodes 1 and 2 aired together, currently it seems like they just share the same viewing figures
  •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Plot

• Link character names to List of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power characters
  • This is something that I am planning to do for all the Rings of Power articles sometime soon. For now, this article is consistent with the others in pointing to the existing Tolkien character articles and providing links to List of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power characters where expected. I don't think the review should be held up by this point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Section is under 400 word limit

Production

• Can any images of cast members be added?
  • I think there is already a good number of images for the size of the article, and I don't think it is necessary to repeat images of the main cast across multiple articles when we can have different images that are specific to this episode's production. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Release

• Why are this and "Reception" separate sections? It doesn't seem long enough to be separate, if merged then it should keep "release" as the main heading
  • "Release" and "Reception" are two separate things and are never combined in any of the Wikipedia articles I have worked on. This is a small section, but there is enough information to justify it based on my experience with previous GA episode articles. If it was just listing the premiere date then I would agree that it should be combined with another section. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Reception

• Table has scopes
• "for the week ending September 4." could this be reworded?
  • I'm not sure what the problem is with this wording, and it is standard for all the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Authors are inconsistently listed on second mention, some have "last name of publication" and some have just "last name"
  • This was intentional, to avoid repetitive wording, but I can adjust if you feel strongly about it for the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Companion media

• Looks good

References

• Ref 11 why is "Decider" a reliable source?
  • Replaced with a better source. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Ref 58 why is "postPerspective" a reliable source?
  • I don't see any issues with its reliability: it has been covering the production and post-production industries for more than 10 years, has editorial oversight from an established industry journalist, has regular interviews with high-profile people working on different films and shows (directors, showrunners, producers, other crew members, etc.), and this source in particular is a direct interview with one of the show's producers. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Ref 59 list as "Time" as "TIME" is a stylisation
  •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Linking and dates consistant
• Spot checks don't find anything
• A few sources have MOS:DASH violations
  •  Done - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.