Talk:Melangell/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: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I will try to review this over the next few days. Generalissima (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's get going!

Images

All sadly low-resolution, but the licensing checks out. The infobox image is given as "Image of Melangell by John Ingleby", but Ingleby was working off a far older wood carving, so would be good to clarify this.

 Done - This actually wasn't an addition that I made, but I've fixed it.

Sourcing

Checks out! You have a very good coverage of the sources available on her, and I commend you for finding all of them. Only problem is that the Malim source doesn't need to be in Further Reading, if you're already citing it.

 Done

Prose

Lede

A bit short, even for an article of this size. Might be good to expand it a little to give a better summary.

 Done I've added a bit more about her subsequent cult, since that's a central aspect of the article.

Life

It's descendant as a noun. I was also confused by the sentence "Melangell was listed as a relative or descendent of Macsen Wledig by both Iolo Morganwg and David Daven Jones", because "descendant to (X) by (Y)" is often used to mean "related to (X) via (Y)". I think just switching it to state the authors names first would solve this.

I'd also add the citation a second time after "virgin beautiful in appearance." It's technically not ambiguous in context, but its generally recommended to always cite a direct quotation at the end of the sentence.

 Done and  Done

Veneration

This section looks good. I'm not sure if Malim's connection to Julian Cox is needed, it seems a little off-topic.

You could shorten "The rood screen, dating to the late 15th century" to "The late 15th century rood screen".

 Done and  Done

General thoughts

All in all seems good! Just needs a couple little adjustments. Generalissima (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review and great feedback! sawyer / talk 19:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looks like it's in good order now, thank you!

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 (inline 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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good job >:3 Generalissima (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

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.