Talk:Melangell/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melangell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110820051037/http://llanfyllindeanery.org.uk/parishes/melangell.htm to http://llanfyllindeanery.org.uk/parishes/melangell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

---

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

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.