Talk:Thorkell (Vinland Saga)

Thorkell (Vinland Saga) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 13, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Fictional characters This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Thorkell (Vinland Saga)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Incipit.[reply]

• Explain what Jomsvikings are.
  • Done.
• "as a Jomsviking commander who later commanded". Repetition. Why later? And since he's a commander, shouldn't be obvious he commanded something? Explain better.
  • Revised
• "The voice actor found the early read of the series' writing interesting to read even one term that appeared in the work". Can you rewrite this sentence? It's quite confusing for me.
  • Removed
• "He enjoyed working with Yuto Uemura (Thorfinn) and Naoya Uchida (Askeladd) due to the dialogues the series has when their characters interact". Quite trivial.
  • Removed
• "Thorkell joins Floki's team to take down Vagn's side". Explain better and present these characters, please.
  • Done
• Same for Einar.
  • Done
• There's an overlink for Floki in "Role".
  • Done

@Tintor2:. That's all. I'll read Reception later. Good work.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TeenAngels1234: Revised. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Let's go.

• "Akio Otsuka's voice acting was praised by Yukimura.[2]" This is also quite trivial.
  • Removed.
• "The medievalist Maxime Danesin noted how the European Middle Ages are seen through the prism of Contemporary Japanese Literature noted Yukimura takes liberties".. Something's wrong there.
  • Reworded.
• "Yaledma Ayala Sepúlveda". Who is this? From the title of the source ("MA thesis"), are we sure this is a RS?
  • Removed.

@Tintor2: That's all.

@TeenAngels1234: Revised. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   B. All

   reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines

   :

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Comment: Allright. Pretty good article. Well-written, with good sources and clear even for a non-VS fan like me. Good work. Pass.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]