Talk:Melangell/GA1

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

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I will try to review this over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's get going!

Images
All sadly low-resolution, but the licensing checks out. The infobox image is given as "Image of Melangell by John Ingleby", but Ingleby was working off a far older wood carving, so would be good to clarify this.

✅ - This actually wasn't an addition that I made, but I've fixed it.

Sourcing
Checks out! You have a very good coverage of the sources available on her, and I commend you for finding all of them. Only problem is that the Malim source doesn't need to be in Further Reading, if you're already citing it.

✅

Lede
A bit short, even for an article of this size. Might be good to expand it a little to give a better summary.

✅ I've added a bit more about her subsequent cult, since that's a central aspect of the article.

Life
It's descendant as a noun. I was also confused by the sentence "Melangell was listed as a relative or descendent of Macsen Wledig by both Iolo Morganwg and David Daven Jones", because "descendant to (X) by (Y)" is often used to mean "related to (X) via (Y)". I think just switching it to state the authors names first would solve this.

I'd also add the citation a second time after "virgin beautiful in appearance." It's technically not ambiguous in context, but its generally recommended to always cite a direct quotation at the end of the sentence.

✅ and ✅

Veneration
This section looks good. I'm not sure if Malim's connection to Julian Cox is needed, it seems a little off-topic.

You could shorten "The rood screen, dating to the late 15th century" to "The late 15th century rood screen".

✅ and ✅

General thoughts
All in all seems good! Just needs a couple little adjustments. Generalissima (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and great feedback! sawyer /  talk  19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's in good order now, thank you!


 * 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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good job >:3 Generalissima (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Good job >:3 Generalissima (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good job >:3 Generalissima (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)