Talk:The Children of Húrin/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll be happy to review this one: perhaps embarrassingly I haven't read the book, but that's not the worst thing in a reviewer. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC) Also, good to see you, Chiswick Chap, been a while, hope you're well. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, thank you, and good to interact with you again. I've addressed all your points below. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks: I've looked it over and nothing else sticks out to me, so passing. Interesting read. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]- Beginning with source checks, I believe each of the sources present here is fine as far as they go (refreshing, not to have to flag a half-dozen...). That said, I have some notes:
- Thank you.
- I would strong prefer secondary sources being used for anything that isn't plot material; so all of the author section. I would also think it possible to construct a "setting" subsection, sourced to secondary sources, separate from the in-universe background (which is fine in and of itself).
- Added refs. I think the combination of the Authorial context and the In-universe setting sufficient.
- I would strong prefer secondary sources being used for anything that isn't plot material; so all of the author section. I would also think it possible to construct a "setting" subsection, sourced to secondary sources, separate from the in-universe background (which is fine in and of itself).
- There's a dozen decent scholarly sources out there. Even at FAC it would not be expected that you use them all, but I'm seeing three sources by two authors, only one of which is specific to this story at all. I wonder if you could work in a couple more? I would suggest the following: [10.1353/tks.0.0022], [1], [2].
- Done.
- There's a dozen decent scholarly sources out there. Even at FAC it would not be expected that you use them all, but I'm seeing three sources by two authors, only one of which is specific to this story at all. I wonder if you could work in a couple more? I would suggest the following: [10.1353/tks.0.0022], [1], [2].
- Footnote 12 strikes me as out of place. I think you could work that link into the prose, but we shouldn't be referring to other Wikipedia articles as sources. Certainly the link isn't actually supporting the text it footnotes, and I don't think you meant it to.
- Moved to Notes, it was never a ref.
- Footnote 12 strikes me as out of place. I think you could work that link into the prose, but we shouldn't be referring to other Wikipedia articles as sources. Certainly the link isn't actually supporting the text it footnotes, and I don't think you meant it to.
Spotchecks:
[edit]- FN2 is okay on substance, but I think you need to make it clear it's referring to Tolkien's writing as it appeared in the Silmarillion; the source predates the publication of the Children of Hurin. Also: I think the page range is incorrect? I can only access fragments, but 155-156 make no mention of the Valkyrie, Siegmund and Sieglinde, or Nienor.
- Glossed; added the other source I'd also used.
- FN2 is okay on substance, but I think you need to make it clear it's referring to Tolkien's writing as it appeared in the Silmarillion; the source predates the publication of the Children of Hurin. Also: I think the page range is incorrect? I can only access fragments, but 155-156 make no mention of the Valkyrie, Siegmund and Sieglinde, or Nienor.
- T4: I don't think you should be using a primary source for analytical claims about influences; at best the content needs to be rephrased to a bare retelling of what's in the source material.
- Edited.
- T4: I don't think you should be using a primary source for analytical claims about influences; at best the content needs to be rephrased to a bare retelling of what's in the source material.
- FN7 checks out.
- Noted.
- FN8 checks out, though the author is referring to a specific chapter...suggest working that in.
- Done.
- FN7 checks out.
- FN11 checks out.
- Noted.
- FN16 checks out.
- Noted.
- Link seems to be broken for FN19; could you find an archived version?
- Added.
- FN11 checks out.
Prose matters:
[edit]- Both themes and reception feel a little thin to me, themes especially so. We don't need a dozen paragraphs; this isn't FAC; but we could manage more detail, surely?
- See "Sources" above on themes. Reception has a dozen sources already, and it discusses a wide range of opinions.
- Both themes and reception feel a little thin to me, themes especially so. We don't need a dozen paragraphs; this isn't FAC; but we could manage more detail, surely?
- I confess I don't love the parentheticals in the reception section: to me it makes the prose choppy, and as a reader I'm more interested in the why than in whether the review was positive or negative. I cannot fault the construction based on any objective reading of the criteria, so I'm not going to do more than note this here.
- Edited them out.
- I confess I don't love the parentheticals in the reception section: to me it makes the prose choppy, and as a reader I'm more interested in the why than in whether the review was positive or negative. I cannot fault the construction based on any objective reading of the criteria, so I'm not going to do more than note this here.
- The lead, also, feels a little thin. I would include a little bit about the influences and themes, and perhaps detail from reception. Two paragraphs is what I would suggest for an article this length; perhaps a doubling of what's there?
- Done.
- The lead, also, feels a little thin. I would include a little bit about the influences and themes, and perhaps detail from reception. Two paragraphs is what I would suggest for an article this length; perhaps a doubling of what's there?
- The origin of orcs in-universe is murky, as I recall, and not contemporaneous with other races (which indeed also emerge at different times)...
- True, but since we haven't said when any of them emerged here, it's for other articles to discuss.
- The origin of orcs in-universe is murky, as I recall, and not contemporaneous with other races (which indeed also emerge at different times)...
- Gloss Beleg and Saeros at first appearance (you could also omit Saeros altogether; see note about length above).
- Glossed. Saeros is in a way key as he's the start of the killing-spree that characterizes T's life... and death.
- Gloss Beleg and Saeros at first appearance (you could also omit Saeros altogether; see note about length above).
- Brandir could likewise be omitted, I think.
- Not really, he occurs repeatedly, close to the core of the story.
- Brandir could likewise be omitted, I think.
- "having monkeyed with his father's text" strikes me as a little colloquial.
- Replaced.
- "having monkeyed with his father's text" strikes me as a little colloquial.
Miscellaneous notes:
[edit]- I'm under the impression that the "preceded" and "followed" fields in the infobox are for series; you could use the appropriate middle earth volumes, but given the history I would omit altogether; I don't see how Sigurd and Gudrun is in any way a successor of this work.
- Removed.
- I'm under the impression that the "preceded" and "followed" fields in the infobox are for series; you could use the appropriate middle earth volumes, but given the history I would omit altogether; I don't see how Sigurd and Gudrun is in any way a successor of this work.
- At 927 words, the plot summary is pushing the length limit. Could you tighten? 700 is what I typically aim for, but you could lose a 100 words or so quite easily I think.
- Trimmed.
- @Chiswick Chap: That's all I have for the moment, I'll take a second pass once you've dealt with my comments: ping me when you're done, if you would. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 28 August 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.