Talk:The Road Goes Ever On (song)/GA1

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 16:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for taking this on. I'll respond to any comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
 * 2) Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
 * 3) Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
 * 4) Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
 * 5) ''Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
 * 6) Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
 * 7) Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation – not applicable.
 * 8) Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
 * 9) All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
 * 10) All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
 * 11) Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
 * 12) No original research.
 * 13) No copyright violations or plagiarism.
 * 14) Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
 * 15) Neutral.
 * 16) Stable.
 * 17) Illustrated, if possible.
 * 18) Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

I'll do this review. Hope to have some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,. This is excellent and a very enjoyable read. I'm a huge fan of the Tolkien books and I've always thought the poems and ballads gave them an extra dimension. For personal preference only, I would expand It is identical except for changing the word "eager" to "weary" in the fifth line to It is identical to the first except for changing the word "eager" to "weary" in the fifth line. That would be just for clarification. Can I also suggest a paragraph break between the second and third versions in that section?
 * Both done.

As I say, though, these are personal preference only and I'm not going to put the review on hold for them. This is absolutely a good article and I'm passing it. I'll do the necessary at WP:GA and the talk page. Well done. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)