GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 01:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk) at 17:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article links: nominated revision, reviewed revision, promoted revision

Looks like a fun and interesting article. I'll try to get a review posted in the next few days. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Looking forward to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great little article, just a couple minor points before promoting. I made some minor edits to the article myself (MOS, reference tidy, and layout of the Beowulf excerpt). Feel free to revert anything you disagree with and we can discuss it as part of this review. Full review follows. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.

Criterion

[edit]

I will update the checklist as progress is made.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Check layout of Beowulf excerpt and treatment of fiction in image captions
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Earwig for quotations and titles only.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Minor misrepresentation detected in a couple quotations
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review comments

[edit]

Prose & layout

[edit]

Prose is really good! I only found a few things to comment on.

Many thanks!

Referencing & verifiability

[edit]

For the most part this is a checklist as I went through the sources. Citation numbers are as of this revision.

1 – Beowulf quote and translationChecked

Noted.

2 – "Culver 2013". AGF for offline reliable source; saw a bit from a Google Books snippet viewChecked

Noted.

3 – on jstor.Checked I wonder if maybe these two citations should be moved down to the end of the following sentence?

Moved.Checked

4 – "Fraser" the pdf download did not want to display for me but I was able to copy the text into another program.Checked

Noted.

5 – the url was corrupted; repaired.Checked

Noted, thanks.

6 – webpage seems to have moved but I found it at the internet archive. Added archive links.Checked

Noted.

7 and 8 – "Lacon 1994" and "Kelly 2016". The inline citations to these may have to be moved around a bit to properly cover the material. For example, the quote "the old Northern European world of fairy-tale and a relatively modern world represented in the Shire" is currently cited to "Lacon 1994" but actually appears in "Kelly 2016".Red XN

9 - on jstor.Checked

10 – Found the 2003 paperback edition of this has snippet view on Google Books. Can verify about breeding orcs who fight in daylight. AGF on remainder.Checked

Noted.

11 – on Project MuseChecked

Noted.

12 – on Oxford Academic. "weirdly cloned" and "high explosives". Combined these three cover the material.Checked

Noted.

13 – "McLarty 2006" on Brill, page 177Checked

Noted.

14 – "Curry 1998" on Google Books, verified quotes pages 62–63, 13–14, and 131.Checked

The first and third underlined parts are easily removed without changing the meaning. But the second underlined part informs us of how the non-underlined parts on either side of it relate to each other. Curry isn't stating that 'Progress is good' but that it is frequently heard from others. That Curry chose the wording that one is seen confirmed everywhere while the other is heard about is suggestive that they are in several ways unequal.

What about changing: [and that] → [along with the sentiment that] ? – Reidgreg (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15 – "Carney 2013" Used five times in the same paragraph (the first two sentences also covered by 16). The clickbait on the CNBC website forced the text into too small of a column so that much of it was not visible; I copied to another program to read it.Checked

16 – "Woolley 2012" Nice.Checked

17 – I was blocked by a subscription the first time I tried to retrieve this but then got through the second time.Checked

Noted.

18 – "Clinton 2016".Checked

Noted.

19 – "Stuart 2022". Found this on Springer via Wikipedia Library (link).Checked Didn't see where the source was supporting the cited material but 18 covers most of it.

Noted.

20 – "Salon"Checked This source also explicitly calls it a "parody". (I did not spot this in the above sources.) However, I didn't find any mention of economics to cover It portrays Mordor as an economically progressive society. It may be that the placement of citations 18–20 are off a little bit.

Edited. Verified
Breadth & focus

Appears to have good coverage of the available sources on the topic.

Thank upi/
Neutrality

A couple issues with quotations noted above.

Addressed there.
Stability

No evidence of edit warring.

Noted.
Media

3 images, all on Commons, tagged with CCSA licences.

As for captions, I'm a little cautious about separating the fictional from the real. With the third image's caption, there is a brief statement, an evocative quote, and a description of the real-world scene depicted. Could something similar be done for the first image's caption? Perhaps there isn't a suitable quote, but I'd appreciate if the first sentence was clear in its describing fiction.

Other areas to improve

[edit]

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve:

Noted.

General discussion

[edit]

Just a few little tweaks and this should be good. I'll try to respond to any questions on this page or otherwise let me know below if you're finished and would like me to go over your changes. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reidgreg: Many thanks. I believe I've addressed all your comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I have some lingering questions about the quotes in the Resistance section. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reidgreg: All done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I hope you understand my concern a little better this time, though I'm repeating myself a bit. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reidgreg: I hope so too. I have made the exact change you asked for, which I hope closes the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Passed GA Criteria, promoted. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]