Talk:Ancestry as guide to character in Tolkien's legendarium/GA1

Passed. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 18:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ZombiUwU (talk · contribs) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, Chiswick Chap. I will be picking up and conducting the review for this article. I look forward to reading this article. I will ping you once my review has been completed (might be a day or two). Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ZombiUwU I've replied to your comments below, and extended the Context and Family trees sections with additional sources in consequence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The primary editor is gone. Chiswick Chap has not edited Wikipedia in a tad bit over 200 days and is unlikely to contribute to review.
- Some sort of mistake here; I've been editing every day. Perhaps you saw that this one article has been waiting unedited all that while. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I think I probably clicked view history on your user page thinking it was user contribs. It was late. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 16:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing. Lacks sufficient citations for the first half of the article.
- What do you mean by this? The article is fully sourced throughout. I don't repeat citations in the lead, per MOS, as it just summarizes the cited text below.
  - I apologize for any confusion caused by my previous message. Upon reading the article, I noticed that the number of inline citations appeared relatively low throughout the first few paragraphs. In my understanding, it's customary to provide inline citations for claims that have the potential to be challenged. I kept my initial message brief, mistakenly assuming that there might not be a response and that I would have time to revise it after I woke up. I regret any misunderstanding my folly has caused. Thank you! ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 16:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need a second opinion on this article as I generally believe its content is of high quality and most standards are met. I am unsure if the number of sources for the Context and Hobbit family trees sections is sufficient.

- You are free to ask as you like. 'Context' is just background info to set the scene, and is reliably sourced. Its cited claims are well-attested and very easily verified. I've added a little more contextual detail for you, with additional citations. The 'Trees' section is fully cited, and inevitably relies on the primary source, Tolkien himself, along with the scholars cited; I've again added a little more background detail there, this time from Fisher.

- - Thank you! I will check the edits and pass this seeing as it meets the criteria. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.