Talk:Gandalf/GA1

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Review Comments

 * Lead: is there a source for the pronunciation being "(/ˈɡændɑːlf/)"?
 * Removed.


 * Lead: should it be "in Völuspá" rather than "in the Völuspá"? A quick reading of Völuspá and a Google search suggested the former, but there are Google Books results that refer to the Völuspá."
 * As you say, it can be either. 'the' feels more natural to me.


 * Names: As there are multiple meanings for the word staff, is there a useful link that can be added to avoid possible confusion with staff in the employed sense? Wizard's staff redirects to wand but I'm not sure that's helpful here. I'm happy with no change if there isn't a link that makes it easier for the reader than leaving the article as-is would.
 * Yes. As none of the Istari had a team of staff officers, I think we'd best just leave it really.


 * I don't like the look of "Internal biography" as a section heading. Is "Fictional biography" or something else appropriate? (I don't think that MOS:WAF is prescriptive about this. I'm happy to consider any argument for retaining the current phrase.)
 * Yes, that's nicer. Done.


 * The White Council: "Gandalf suspected early on that the Necromancer of Dol Guldur was not a Nazgûl but Sauron himself." This is the first time the Necromancer is mentioned in the article, so consider a brief intro. (e.g. "Sauron concealed himself in the south of Mirkwood as the Necromancer, in the stronghold of Dol Guldur, "Hill of Sorcery" - which is a direct lift from the Sauron article.)
 * Added a gloss to avoid going into too much detail here.


 * The Hobbit: this is the first mention of Bilbo here, so I suggest linking to the article Bilbo Baggins here rather than later. (Or in both places.)
 * Linked.


 * The Hobbit: "To the quest, Gandalf contributes the map and key to Erebor." How about something like: "Gandalf contributes the map and key to Erebor to the quest party."
 * Edited. Avoided 'party' as we had 'tea party' in previous sentence!


 * The Hobbit: this is the first mention of Elrond here, so I suggest linking to the article Elrond here rather than later. (Or in both places.)
 * Linked.


 * Gandalf the White: "Wormtongue makes an indecisive attempt.." Should it be something like "unsuccessful" rather than "indecisive"? Or, if the point is that he was uncertain, something like "An indecisive Wormtongue makes an attempt.."
 * Removed, it reads fine without.


 * Gandalf the White: "the forces of the West faced the full might of Sauron's armies, until the Ring is destroyed in Mount Doom" - I think "Ring was destroyed" would read better, but that might be just a personal opinion.
 * Done.


 * Guide: "The Tolkien scholar Charles W. Nelson …" paragraph cites the same reference three times in a couple of lines. I think it probably only needs the citation at the end of the paragraph.
 * Done.


 * Adaptations:"The make-up and costumes were based on designs by John Howe and Alan Lee" needs a reference. (Unless I've missed the reference to this in the HuffPost article.)
 * Good catch, removed. Howe and Lee were the conceptual designers, I don't think they stooped as low as makeup, and nor need we.


 * Adaptations: The "McKellen received widespread acclaim .." paragraph needs some more citations for awards (SAG, Saturn), and ideally one to support "widespread acclaim," although three major awards and inclusion in Empire's list is arguably enough to support that phrase.
 * Added refs.


 * Adaptations: "making him the only individual cast member of the films to be nominated for an Oscar" feels like it needs a citation to avoid looking like WP:OR.
 * Removed, really not necessary.


 * I'm happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my comments above. The pending tasks for me are the copyvio check, image check, and look at the article supporting the Lego Movie paragraph. I should be able to do those tonight. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

 * Adaptations: The paragraph beginning "Gandalf appears in The Lego Movie .." needs further citations. The stated source doesn't cover most of the points here.
 * Cut down, focussed, and added refs.


 * I've gone through results showing above 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and have only one concern. The matches are mostly attributed quotes, titles, or text taken from the Wikipedia article rather than vice versa, but the phrasing of the Appearance section is a little too close to the Tolkien Society source included under external links.
 * Rewritten.


 * External links: IMDB is regarded as an unreliable source but is OK to include in external links as per WP:RSP, so it seems fair enough to keep lotr.wikia.com in here too.
 * Removed the flakiest of the external links.


 * I think this should be it for my comments, but I will give the article another read-through tomorrow with fresher eyes. Thanks for the earlier responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * - thanks again. I'm now happy to pass the article for GA. Well done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)