GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How lighthearted! I may make some minor edits throughout the review. Feel free to discuss my comments if you disagree with them.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

[edit]

Verifiable with no original research

[edit]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]
sources
Miscellaneous
  • Corriea, Alexa Ray (September 23, 2014). "There and Back Again: A History of the Lord of the Rings in Video Games". Polygon. Archived from the original on September 24, 2014. Retrieved February 24, 2024.
    • Added a gloss with this ref.
About the book
About the university (courtesy of its own article)

Neutral

[edit]

No undue promotion. Quotes and statements are differentiated.

Stable

[edit]

No recent edit wars or content disputes.

Illustrated

[edit]

No media, so nothing to review in terms of copyright or relevance. However:

Summary

[edit]

Sorry for ... that wall of sources. Anyways, please know that I'm very willing to help with the "Academic career" section and whatnot! I will look at prose afterwards.

Many thanks! I'll see what I can do with the comments and sources today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great changes so far! I will check up on this later today. And forgive my wacky review formatting, I'm still getting used to this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, I did a major edit to bring the article's verifibility and broadness up to criteria. I had thought some additions and rewriting were still in order, but I didn't want to overload you considering the 5 other reviews on your plate. Feel free to make any changes, otherwise I'll start writing my comments about prose! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.