Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power season 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will be reviewing this article, expect the initial remarks soon! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Add archive links to the appropriate sources using the iabot tool; Also there are 5 URLs that are redirects, update them. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on this review Vestrian24Bio. I ran the IABot tool to see what had been missed and the only sources it picked up were video and podcast sources. I didn't see the redirecting URLs using the link classifier tool, do you have another way of identifying those? - adamstom97 (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might help... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I have updated the redirects except for this URL which was already marked as dead. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add an alt text to the infobox image.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Cast and characters" sub-sections, it should be "Main" and "Recurring".
- Those labels do not apply to this series as it does not use the standard starring/guest star credits. This current approach still aligns with the guidelines at MOS:TVCAST even though they are not standard. See Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power/Archive 10#Approach to the cast lists if you want more details on the decision making behind this. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't young Galadriel be placed next to Galadriel with an increased indent...
- She isn't a starring cast member, I would only expect that to happen if she was also a starring cast member and belonged under the Starring heading. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Design" section should be renamed as "Production design".
- This covers all design elements for the series, for example costumes and prosthetics, not just production design. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References (as of this rev)
- Are refs 100, 103, 106, 112 and 133 needed? (tweets and YT) couldn't they be replaced by a better source.
  - I have removed 103 as that info was already covered, and I have replaced 112 and 133 with better sources. 100 and 106 may be videos on YouTube but they are direct interviews with the creative team and have some good bits that aren't covered by other sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Are refs 15, 52, 175, 176, 201, 252, 295-4 and 298-4 reliable? couldn't they be replaced by a better RS.
  - I have removed or replaced all of these except for 201, as Mendelson is a good source for commentary who is covered by the SME exception at WP:FORBESCON, and 176/252 which are both reliable sources per WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE (they don't fall under the other Rolling Stone sections marked as not reliable at WP:RSPS). - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 265, 315 and 317 are unreliable.
  - I have removed / replaced these. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bayona's image should be kept adjacent to the 3rd paragraph instead of the 2nd.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of {{Main|List of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power characters{{!}}List of ''The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power'' characters}}, it could be {{Main|List of The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power characters|l1 = List of ''The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power'' characters}}.
- Done - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vestrian24Bio 14:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to each point above. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.
	1b. 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, 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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. 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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.