Talk:Radagast/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

Many thanks for taking this on! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and Plagiarism check

Looked at all sources showing more than 3% match on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No concerns - nearly all matches were due to titles.

Noted.

Lead and Infobox

His appearance in The Silmarillion isn't covered in the body of the article.

There's hardly anything to say, but I've now said it.

Should The Silmarillion be under primary rather than secondary sources?

Done.

"He features also ..." sounds to me like a phrasing that might be used by a character in the books. Consider "He also features … "

Fixed.

Adaptations

"and is expanded far beyond the brief role in the book." needs another source.

Cited.

I couldn't access the Filmonic source link - possibly a temporary issue.

Added Archive link.

"A worried Radagast watches as Gandalf enters Dol Guldur." doesn't seem to be included in the source cited.

Removed.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies details aren't in the source cited.

Cited.

Chiswick Chap I don't have much to say on this one. The article seems to me to be comprehensive, neutral, and appropriately supported by sources except where there is a little bit to do on the Adaptations section. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses above. I spotted one other small thing - is "Other" meant to be a subheading under Adaptations (===Other=== rather than ==Other==)?

Good catch, demoted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on the article. I'm happy to pass it for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]