Talk:Orc/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 11:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

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.	In in-fiction origins: Or, they were "The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape",, is this intentional redundancy? Tolkien's words; if you read it as "Orcs were (a new kind of) beasts resembling humans" then there is no redundancy, but who are we to guess what was meant. more than half like a goblin -- I always read this as hyperbole? It's quoted exactly as written; the exact degree of resemblance can only be guessed at. Yes, but it's being used in a para about half-orcs, so when I read it my thought was, "Was Frodo saying he thought the southerner actually was half-goblin, or was he just remarking on his ugliness? This is me nitpicking, willing to pass without a change, just wanted to note what I thought when I read it. Noted. In a shared morality took it as read is pretty BrEng, and while I got it, I'm wondering if it might be possible to use something more broadly understood? Is 'took it as given' a little more widely used? In other authors, I'm wondering if post-apocalyptic fantasy world might sound more idiomatic; that's really nitpicking, though. :) Yes, that's better, reworded. In in games, Since the publication of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, orcs have become a fixture of fantasy fiction and role-playing games how long after publication did role-playing games start using orcs? I'm thinking it must have been at earliest the late 60s, so decades later. Maybe make that clearer? Or just eliminate 'since the publication' as unneeded? Good point. Said 'based on'.
	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:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	One unsourced para
	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).	There are a few iffy sources (onering.net, tvtropes.org, destructoid.com) but none of them are being used to support anything controversial, just to do a little fleshing out.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	deviantart.com shows significant similarities, I assume they're copying from us? I assume so, I certainly haven't been copying from them.
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.	Giambattista Basile "claimed" to be passing on oral folktales? Is that a point of contention among scholars? Reworded to 'stated'.
	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.	All images except the D&D one in the gallery at the bottom are free-use. I'm not sure about that one; it's the only one for D&D, so possibly a reasonable fair use, but OTOH we have multiple other depictions. What's your thought? Removed it.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The moral geography image needs an alt to explain what it is conveying to people using readers Added.
	7. Overall assessment.	I like to give articles a last re-read the next day, as once I've been reading through multiple times very critically, I find I can no longer read like a reader. :) I'll come back tomorrow and finish! If I don't, it's because I've forgotten, so ping me! —valereee (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)