Talk:Glorfindel/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Notes below... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ... decided that it was a "somewhat random use" of a name.... - do you think he means that the name was inadvertently used twice? Is that clear in the source?
 * Yes. Reworded.


 * ... Anger took the view that Tolkien's idea of an improved story for the character.. - is "improved" the right word here? More "explained"?
 * Reworded.


 * The last line of the Analysis should probably be further up in the section (maybe even touched on in the lead) - i.e. conjecture raised in section and then explained.
 * Moved, it fits well with the Don Anger material.


 * Try and avoid/minimise one-sentence paragraphs
 * Done.

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)