Talk:Figwit/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. It looks like a great little article on a wonderful (if very minor) subject. Reading through it, the article seems well written and referenced, and indeed I believe you have shown Figwit exists! I will be posting further comments here. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "during the council at Rivendell scene" - perhaps you could provide a little more context for those who do not know what this scene is.
 * Done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.figwitlives.net/ - there should be no external links in the body of the article.
 * WP:EL says "not normally"—could this be an exception? I just don't see a reason not to link to it if we're mentioning it anyway... however, it doesn't really matter to me, so you can decide what you deem more appropriate. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "His fan website proclaims him "in a word, gorgeous. Or another, stunning... hypnotic... stupendous... captivating... take your pick." " - all of the quotation seems to come from the second reference so why do you have two? Also, if you are going to have two, they should be in numerical order, e.g. 2, 8 and not 8, 2.
 * I referenced it twice because the reference to Figwit Lives isn't really a reliable source, and the second reference is for a Toronto Star article that repeats the quote (which you probably can't read because it's part of a database I access through my library). However, I wanted to link to the fan site too, because that's where it originally came from and the Toronto Star article isn't easily accessible to most people. I'm not sure what would be the best thing to do here, so please advise. (At any rate, I've switched the refs for now to the right order). Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He has been the subject of Karaoke - what does this mean? Was there a particular song he was associated with?
 * Again, this is from the Toronto Star article that you (probably) can't access. The quote says:
 * "There is Figwit poetry, Figwit art, Figwit fan fiction, Figwit fights (could he knock out Aragorn and Legolas?) and, my personal favourite, Figwit karaoke. You can sing along to such soon-to-be pop classics as 'Don't Cry For Me, Figwit Baby' (done to the tune 'Don't Cry For Me, Argentina') and 'Pout' (a play on the Tear For Fears hit 'Shout')."
 * I've changed it to say that he was the subject of filks instead, which is more accurate—I just used karaoke because that's what the article said. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "a 57-minute documentary on the Figwit phenomenon was created by McKenzie's fiancée[13] Hannah Clarke" - the footnote reference should be after Hannah Clarke, since she is mentioned in the source.
 * Okay, done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "and features extensive interviews with fans behind various Figwit fan sites as well as Peter Jackson, Barrie Osborne, Mark Ordesky, Ian McKellen, and other cast members" - there should be a "with" in "as well as with Peter Jackson..." if that is what is meant.
 * Done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "He is also a popular subject in slash fan fiction, where he is often named "Melpomaen", an approximate Elvish translation of "fig" and "wit"." -  this should have a reference citation.
 * Done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you can get away with two fair use images, since each is specifically addressed in the article content.
 * Otherwise, it looks good. I'll put the article temporarily on hold until thesse issues are addressed. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the external link in the article. I think it should be removed, perhaps put in a footnote. There are good reasons for the rule - not sending readers off site in the middle of an article, etc. It is a firm rule; some strongly argue that even Wiki sister sites should not be cited in the body of the article because they are not reliable and may be copyvio. Otherwise, your article is ready for GA.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I wasn't aware that the guidleline was that firm—I've taken out the link. Thanks for a very helpful review! Mr. Absurd (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Final GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good work! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good work! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)