Talk:Hobbit/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. It will be my pleasure to review this. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• "Notable members" — Shouldn't "Sméagol/Gollum" be mentioned?

Added.

Origins

• "claimed that he started The Hobbit suddenly" — Could the year be mentioned here?

Done.

In English literature

• '"near-disgrace' — Was it meant to be '"near-disgrace"'?

Fixed.

• "J. Hardy" — Should mention his full name.

Done.

Rabbit

• "eagle" — Should be linked when first mentioned.

Linked.

• "Donald O'Brien" — Note who he is since he doesn't have an article of his own.

Said he was writing in Mythlore, i.e. he was a scholar of Tolkien.

Appearance

• Link — "One Ring".

Done.

Types

• "They lived in holes, or smials, and had closer relations with Dwarves than did other hobbits." → "They lived in holes, or smials, and had closer relations with Dwarves than other hobbits."

Reworded.

• Unlink — "rivers" per MOS:OL, "Déagol" as the redirect leads to the target of "Sméagol/Gollum", and "Old English" and "The Lord of the Rings" since they are linked in previous sections.

Done.

• Link — "Pippin", and "Merry"

Done.

• Just a question/thought — Is there a reason for the order in which they are described? — Since the Fallohides were the second group of hobbits to enter Eriador, and the fact about entering the place is mentioned in the first sentence of each paragraph, shouldn't they be described in the same order for consistency in timeline?

Reordered.

Fictional history

• Unlink — "Harfoots", "Stoors" and "Fallohides", as they were just written about two sections above, "One Ring"

Done.

• Link — "Third Age" as Third Age, "Mirkwood",

Linked.

• "The Tolkien critic Tom Shippey" → "Shippey" as he is frequently mentioned previously in the article.

Done.

• A thought/question — Shouldn't the events of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Ring be summarized in a line or two for each in here, since those are the only sources that popularized the word? The part of the lead, "Bilbo Baggins, who is thrown into an unexpected adventure involving a dragon" is not covered in the prose, and "the events in The Lord of the Rings" is not either.

Done.

In culture

• Link — "Dungeons & Dragons" when first mentioned.

Done.

• "These tiny people" — Could write it a bit more formally. Perhaps → "The species of small archaic human" — As per its article.

Reworded.

References

Secondary

• Reference 6 — "tolkiengateway.net" → "Tolkien Gateway".

Done.

• Reference 21 — "publisher=LA Record" → "work=L.A. Record" — Requires accessdate.

Added.

That will be all. It is very well-written, and it shall pass. Thank you. — The Most Comfortable Chair 04:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review, and the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Final

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   It is an excellent article and a joy to read. The article is written so well and it flows perfectly. Definitely meets the criteria. Thank you for your fine work! — The Most Comfortable Chair 10:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)