Talk:Gil-galad/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Alan Islas (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Chiswick Chap I will be reviewing this GA nomination. Adding comments as I work through it. Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; ✓
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.✓
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;✓
   2. 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. it contains no original research;✓ and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.✓
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)✓.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.✓
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.✓
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content✓; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions✓.

Comments

Very well written and researched, with plenty of sources and covering all important aspects of the subject. A pleasure to read and will not have an issue supporting for GA. Just some comments below that I will be adding as I work through the text.

Thank you!

- "Sauron finally came forth and fought hand-to hand against Gil-galad and Elendil...":
hand-to-hand?

Yes, in person, face-to-face.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The second dash is missing in the article, it says: "hand-to hand"

Fixed. BTW for something so small it's fine just to go ahead and fix it.

- "because when orcs saw his spear, they would recognize":
Is the comma needed?

I think so; it feels natural and helpful in British English. I suspect that stresses fall differently in other varieties of our language.

Thanks, sounds good.

- The question of parentage:
This seems to be a complicated subject on which Tolkien himself was unsure and his son afterwards too. The main facts are provided but I think further elaborating the subject would be helpful, showing why making Gil-galad the son of Fingon was a hard editorial decision to make. What were the implications, why Christopher Tolkien regretted his decision? I came across this text by Renee Vink, The parentage of Gil-galad, which discusses the subject in detail and perhaps could be used to expand this section.

Well I guess Vink and Unquendor are just about a reliable source, and the arguments are certainly interesting to Silmarillion afficionados, if they read carefully! I've done my best to summarize the more comprehensible of her arguments

Thanks! The effort is very much appreciated and I think it adds to the article in a useful way. Information about Gil-galad is relatively sparse, so I believe including more analysis and background from available sources is important.

Thanks for working with me in this review. I've changed to GA status. Again, great job! Alan Islas (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Regards, Alan Islas (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)