Talk:Themes of The Lord of the Rings/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: Juliette Han (talk · contribs) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. I'm accustomed to working with reviewers to address any issues they identify, whether slight or serious, and look forward to seeing your comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soon. Juliette Han (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

'including a reversed quest... including the presence of three Christ figures' → 'comprising the presence of three Christ figures'

Edited.

'and its relationship to peoples and places; and of moralisation' → 'and places; along with/alongside moralisation'

Done.

Antitheses

MOS:LQ (corrected myself)
'Tolkien stated in his Letters' → wiki-link

@Chiswick Chap: Is this something you do not agree with or maybe you just accidentally skipped it? Juliette Han (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linked, just missed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'antitheses, though pronounced and prolific, are sometimes seen to be too polarizing… Tolkien's technique has been seen to' → 'are sometimes considered to be too polarizing'

Done.

'according to John Magoun' → 'according to John Magoun.'

Done.

Note b: earth's "spatial cum moral dimensions".. → .

Fixed.

Environmentalism and technology

MOS:LQ (corrected myself)

Danger of power

'in their turn' - either two commas or no commas at all

Gone.

'also reject it, fearing that it will overpower them also' → 'it will overpower them as well'

Done.

Christianity

MOS:LQ (corrected myself)

Rebutted negative themes

MOS:QUOTE (corrected myself)
'Sandra Ballif Straubhaar writes that... She notes...

She quotes... She argues...' → 'Straubhaar quotes'

Done.

Outcome

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See comments.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I put it On hold for 7 days as per comments above. Juliette Han (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've made the changes you requested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Gorgeous pass for this gorgeous article. Congratulations! Juliette Han (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.