Talk:Saruman/GA1

GA Review

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

I am failing this article for GA, since large portions of it are original research. See the explanations below:

Large sections of the "Appearances" and "Characteristics" sections are referenced to Tolkien's own works - only the most basic and least ambiguous pieces of information can be sourced to these sources, since they are primary sources. Because these sections are based so heavily on primary sources, they are original research. The description of the character, for example, is a list of things the editors have deemed important, not things critics or scholars have deemed important. Statements like the following need secondary sources:

This is an evolution from the earliest outline, in which Saruman was apparently directly serving Sauron. The knowledge of Saruman's treachery became a key point in the decisions taken on how to deal with the Ring.
Saruman is most often described by other characters in the book as a traitor or treacherous

File:SarumanLOTR.jpg and File:LOTR78 Saruman.PNG are fair use images. They need fair use rationales to explain how they meet WP:NFCC.

In general, this article needs far more research - reading the published scholarship on Lord of the Rings will give you sources and more information for the article. Here are some helpful discussions and bibliographies about Lord of the Rings: User talk:Awadewit/Archive 32#LotR FAR comments, User talk:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography, User:Astraflame/Tolkien Bibliography. Carcharoth might also have some helpful advice. Awadewit (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what did I say above...as you will see, I tend to agree about the derivation from primary sources. I assume the basic physical description is OK, as we've not picked and chosen there or drawn any conclusions; that's all there is, and a secondary source is unlikely to repeat it. Feeling mildly hurt ;-), I would suggest that quite a lot of published sources have been investigated to get where we are now, but we can always strive to do more. I have consulted nearly all of the ones on Carcaroth's list of Major Literature, with the exception of the journals. Oddly, there's not a lot of discussion of Saruman in some of the major sources - nothing at all in Tolkien and the Great War as an example from memory - and particularly so for those that are critical of LOTR like Manlove and Roberts. 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten pretty significantly (see diff), many primary sources replaced by secondary ones, with consequent changes to what is said in the article. As indicated above, almost all of the major literature sources have been consulted - I've failed to turn up much of significance in those journals I've been able to look at, but confess my searches there are less than complete. The fact that there actually seems to be little discussion of Saruman in the many sources I have investigated gives me some confidence that it's unlikely that I'm missing much. 4u1e (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]