Talk:Harad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'm pleased to see some LOTR content being pushed towards GAC while a lot of the non-notable content is being deleted. Happy to offer a review, though it may come in dribs and drabs. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I've done as much axing as a Dwarf as well as quite a lot of new stonemasonry... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page history - really great work. Whatever the outcome of this review, you should be proud! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

"In J. R. R. Tolkien's epic fantasy Lord of the Rings," Well, yes, but more than that, as Middle Earth fiction comprises more than LOTR. Or am I overthinking?

Legendarium it is.

"on the Old English word Sigelwara." The link goes to an article about an essay, not an article about a word. Also, be aware of our words as words guideline. And a link to our article on the Old English language wouldn't hurt.

Italics it is. The word is discussed in the article about the essay, hope that's ok. Linked OE in the lead.

Why all the bold in the article body? I'd lose it all. The guidelines about bold text in the lead don't apply outside of the lead! I'm also seeing lots of words as words problems.

Removed.

I think it's regrettable that you're demoting lots of interesting scholarly analaysis to footnotes.

1) Cuvier note promoted to main text. 2) The note on the Balrog and Silmarils is basically an aside as far as Harad is concerned; I should put it in the article on Tolkien's influences when I feel strong, and there it'll certainly be main text. 3) The Cole note nearly repeats what's already in the article, so he's demoted to a ref.

Lots of repeat links. I think there's a tool that can help you spot them?

Used it to remove lots.

"many other Southrons joined his armies" Why the change in terminology?

Fixed.

You introduce the mumakil several times. Once will be enough! You're also inconsistent on capitalisation.

All now lower case.

"bore a standard of a black serpent on a red field" Again, perhaps this is repetition?

Removed.

If "Sigelwara Land" is an essay, it should be referred to "in quotes", not in italics

Done.

Is "moral geography" the best section title? It's not a very familiar term.

Open to suggestions. It's from a cited quote in the section and it seems to suit the material rather well.

"but comments that this was milder than many of his contemporary novelists such as John Buchan," Unclear; I assume you mean to say that Tolkein's racism was milder than that of his contemporaries? It's not clear what is being compared to John Buchan. (And you probably don't want to compare to Buchan himself, anyway - you want to compare to his racism, or his depictions, or what have you. This is a grammatical point, not a literary one - i've no opinion about who was or wasn't racist.)

Tweaked. Nor have I; the opinions are all from critics and academics.

Middle-earth Role Playing (not "The Middle-earth Role Playing game") is not based on the film trilogy, though it appears in a paragraph with things that are. But then The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II appears in a different paragraph.

Fixed format. Now just one paragraph about games. Merged mentions of MERP.

"called Buccaneers Inn about the Corsairs of Umbar on" What's going on with the italics, here?

Fixed.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Middle-earth: Shadow of War; Baranor, a secondary protagonist, is from Umbar.

Added.

"Calormenes, a similar race of men from CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia" Source?

Done. I've never had to ref a 'See also' before; there's a new fashion for annotating them, which clearly has its drawbacks!

You should cite the particular chapter of the Tolkein encyclopedia, not the book as a whole.

Each chapter now cited separately.

Why the Ted Nasmith external link?

Removed.

That's what jumps out from a first read-through; a few issues, but nothing insurmountable. I haven't looked closely at sources or images, and I want to have a snoop around Google Scholar to see what may have been missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More

Looking through again:

I'm pretty sure we talk about fictional in the present tense; Harad is a land south of Gondor.

Done.

"Critics have debated whether Tolkien was racist in making the protagonists white and the antagonists black, but others have noted that he was strongly opposed to the demonisation of the enemy in both World Wars." I'm struggling with this sentence.

Said he was strongly anti-racist.

Your pictures of the boats and (to a lesser extent) your image of the elephant don't really have captions that explain what is being shown.

Attributed images in both captions.

You start the article proper with some complex stuff about Elven languages. Perhaps you could start with some like "Harad is a large country south of Middle earth"?

Done, and reordered.

Have to stop there - made a few edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Ok; I've made some more fixes (please double-check... Digging into MERP got me itching to get back to pen-and-paper roleplaying...). I'm happy with the sources except for The Encyclopedia of Arda. Could I ask for it to be removed or for an explanation of its reliability to be provided?

Replaced.

If File:Haradrim.jpg is definitely needed, could I ask you to tidy up the rationale/the image page? Other than that, I'm happy with the images. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

Great - I'm happy this is where it needs to be. Good working with you, and I'm thrilled to see high-quality articles about Tolkein's fiction working their way through GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]