Talk:Forests in Middle-earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seltaeb Eht (talk · contribs) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wanting to jump into GA reviewing, so as a huge Tolkien nerd with an education in forestry this one was calling my name! I'll start adding some comments this afternoon/evening (EST). Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Many thanks, and if I can give you a hand with anything, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated

Main image is well chosen and evocative. Both it and maps properly licensed. Looks great! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!

Thinking of the reader unfamiliar with Middle-earth, might it be helpful in the map captions to indicate that the forest areas are colored green? It may seem obvious, but especially since the Old Forest, Fangorn, and Lothlorien are so small in the thumbnail map, it may help readers pick them out. Seltaeb Eht (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.

Verifiable

a vast and dark temperate broadleaf and mixed forest - I'll give a quick read of Queer Lodgings and Spiders and Flies, but I'm not sure there's enough in the text to say this for sure (despite it probably being true). Does one of the secondary sources specify this forest type, or maybe something in Fonstad? Otherwise might be best just to describe the type of trees (I remember Oaks?) and dark character like you've done with the other forests.
- Removed. Not Fonstad. We do of course know it's temperate... but not sure that link text should be displayed.
  - Understood - it's on the edge of WP:BLUE for me, but I've read The Hobbit a dozens of times and have a good working knowledge of forests, so I don't want to presume my knowledge on the average reader.
- As an aside to this, Fonstad (I have the revised edition, 1991) has a neat overview of the forests and vegetation types (for me p. 184). This may be good information to incorporate to add to what can be presented from primary sources. If you don't have it on hand/don't feel like incorporating it, I'm not too hung up on it. Though if you don't, I'll probably look at including it after this review now that I know this article's here. Or (since we got an edit conflict and I see your reply) - may have misread your tone, but is there an issue with Fonstad's reliability?
  - I have the 1994 paperback, which says (c) 1991. I'll take a look. Fonstad is certainly a reliable source: I just meant, it's not in her 'Hobbit' chapter, hadn't thought of looking at the appendices. Page 184 reminds us of Fir, Oak, and Beech... so let's say that in the article. Indeed, that justifies the wikilink really.
    - Yup, same edition - and the change looks good to me. Sorry, should've dug it out on my initial comment to save you some work.

Everything else looks good, and text is well supported by the sources it cites.

Well-Written

Ents, ancient tree-giants who live there - nerd quibble here. Maybe "tree-like giants" would be a more accurate gloss?
- Done.
Taur-nu-Fuin shows up for the first time in the "Dark forbidding..." section, while Taur-im-Duinath is referenced in the Silmarillion section and not brought up in analysis. I can see an unfamiliar reader being confused. Maybe just a quick introductory gloss on Taur-nu-Fuin under the Silmarillion to distinguish it from Taur-im-Duinath?
- Added.

Broad

More of a question for the analysis section: I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage of forests functioning as protective spaces, especially comparing Doriath and Lothlorien. I see that the Evans article briefly ties the two together, but not with any real depth of discussion. Not something I actually think is an issue, but maybe room for future improvement. Did you come across anything like this in your research? I'm certainly not going to insist you research a whole new section, but I'll probably do some searching through Mythlore to see if there's any significant coverage post-review.
- Nothing like that comes to mind, but if I come across it I'll certainly add it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think missing from the article somewhere is a brief introduction of the idea of trees having some sentience/agency and can "speak" in middle-earth. Without this idea, the concepts of the Ents and huorns come a little out of left field (why do the trees need to be herded?), and it adds a little more underpinning to the analysis. Not sure the best place - maybe just a sentence or two in the indroductory paragraph of "Forests"? Edit: I suppose it is introduced in the quote from The Old Forest, but a quick sentence in the main prose would probably be helpful.
- Added a gloss on the "awakening" of the Huorns. Since we've called the Ents "giants" the reader will correctly assume they are sapient.

Wrapping up

Chiswick Chap, thanks for being responsive to my suggestions. I just read over the article with a fresh set of eyes this afternoon. Reading other GA reviews I see they often progress into dozens of prose nitpicks, but to me everything is clear, and stated well enough for the non-specialist reader. So (being my first review) I'm not sure if I'm shirking my duties my not providing a list of nitpicks, but I'm very comfortable calling this a Good Article. Thank you for your tremendous efforts on expanding quality coverage of Tolkien on the encyclopedia! It's a joy to read. I'll get at the technical part of the promotion shortly. Best, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]