Talk:Tolkien's round world dilemma
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Closed Limelike Curves in topic GA Review
 | Tolkien's round world dilemma has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 19, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
| This page was proposed for deletion by Piotrus (talk · contribs) on 12 November 2019. |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tolkien's Round World dilemma/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Closed Limelike Curves (talk · contribs) 17:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've added some questions for you in the form of comments @Chiswick Chap! – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | 3=Minor typos have been fixed. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | 3=MoS satisfied. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | 3=Refs look good. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | 3=Spot checks all look good. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | 3=Check. |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | 3=No copyvio on check. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | 3=Surprisingly more in-depth than I figured a topic like this could get. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | 3=Check. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | 3=Check. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 3=Check. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | 3=Images look good. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | 3=Good images+illustrations! |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | 3=Overall this looks great—congrats on a GA :) |
- @Closed Limelike Curves and Chiswick Chap: I think I've addressed the hidden comments. Double sharp (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Great to hear, thanks! I'll probably wrap this up tomorrow morning. :) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.