Talk:Gil-galad

Repaint

I've completely rewritten this article, with new sources (well, there really weren't any before) and a new structure. There are, in addition to Tolkien and the scholarly sources, adaptations in film and games, not to mention the upcoming Amazon series which to date is only hinted at. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If the heraldic image is a scan from one of the Tolkien art books, is that considered fair use under Wikipedia guidelines? I know these images have been scanned all over the Web, but technically the rights have never been released to the public domain. Are the other heraldic devices Tolkien created also used on Wikipedia? Has this been discussed properly elsewhere? Michael Martinez (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Michael, yes, I've written a fair-usage rationale for it, as it's discussed by two scholars in the text. Just saying that something is in McIlwaine or Hammond & Scull would not be sufficient rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to that? I left a comment on the Middle-earth Heraldry page about this. I decided that's the best place for clarification, rather than on individual articles like this one. Thanks. Michael Martinez (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it in the licensing info in the image. I get THAT. But I think the point should still be clarified in the Heraldry page's discussion.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Action Figures & Gaming Pieces

I don't know if it's appropriate to include in this article mention of action figures and such. I know Toy Vault had one (discontinued product - their license was pulled to make room for the Peter Jackson movies). And I've seen at least 1 table top gaming piece. I don't believe the character was used in any card games or role-playing games, per se.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why not, if we're even-handed about notability: it's certainly a claim to fame. I don't think it particularly important on its own, but as part of a bigger picture it's not without encyclopedic interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

What kind of references do you recommend? I'll see what I can find for links and leave them here. I don't want to edit the article while it's waiting for a GA review.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No hurry. A gamer's magazine is probably the best choice as it's indisputably published and independent. Or if you're lucky a newspaper might have some reviews of presents for Christmas, or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gil-galad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alan Islas (talk · contribs) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Chiswick Chap I will be reviewing this GA nomination. Adding comments as I work through it. Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gil-galad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. </noinclude>

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; ✓
   2. 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:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;✓
   2. 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);✓
   3. it contains no original research;✓ and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.✓
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic;✓ and
   2. 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.✓
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:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content✓; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions✓.