Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo, Chiswick Chap. I'll take this one. I'll will give my initial remarks in a few hours or so. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pre-readthrough remarks
[edit]Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- tor.com is now reactor, update the urls and the publisher name; also, the web page says "Blog", so are you sure it's reliable enough? Done
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
- The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
- Fixed. I normally use sfn when there are sources (usually books) reused with different page numbers.
- The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
are any free-images available for Book II: say their journey from Rivendell to Amon Hen, or the council of Elrond, or something like that- Nothing usable; all the commercial images (and Tolkien's own) are in copyright.
I'll go section by section
Lead
[edit]- Are numbering like 1), 2) allowed in the text (sorry, I'm not familiar with this part of the MOS) Done
- I'd say so, but let's do without them.
- I just noticed- the lead gives 3 reasons for the structure, the structure mentions two under "Homely Houses", so you should add it, or if it's under "Cycles and Spirals"- add a subtitle of "continual rewriting"
- Added "much reworking" to 'Groping for a story'.
- I just noticed- the lead gives 3 reasons for the structure, the structure mentions two under "Homely Houses", so you should add it, or if it's under "Cycles and Spirals"- add a subtitle of "continual rewriting"
- I'd say so, but let's do without them.
Title and publication
[edit]- he called "books" along with: comma between books and along Done
- Added.
Contents
[edit]all Done
- I think you should mention the two versions of the Hobbit, and why Tolkien changed it, in the prologue
- Added a footnote.
- Explain Crickhollow
- Glossed.
- an ancient tree - tree-spirit would be better, perhaps?
- Let's try that.
- perhaps the future- phrase this better
- Done.
- Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo: I think you should explain the seductive power of the ring here or before.
- Done.
Reception
[edit]I took the liberty of moving the reviews/paragraphs around a bit to make it easier to read and feel more thematic, feel free to revert
- The volume was favourably reviewed by nature writer Loren Eiseley. The literary critic Edmund Wilson however wrote an unflattering review entitled "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!"[18]: Expand on these a little, at least a sentence or two each Done
- Added.
Structure
[edit]- His friends had to tell him to cut back the Hobbit-talk.: Umm, who said this? Is this part of the preceding quote? Done
- Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
- Not the pronoun, I meant that it looks like the sentence should be in quotes
- Not a quote. I've spelt out who the people were who told T. off about this.
- Not the pronoun, I meant that it looks like the sentence should be in quotes
- Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
* Frodo's five "Homely Houses": I don't think the diagram needs a heading
- It doesn't have one... perhaps the reordering per the next item will make this clearer.
- I see
- It doesn't have one... perhaps the reordering per the next item will make this clearer.
- I think "groping for a story would be better before deliberately constructed Done
- OK, let's try that.
- Move the table too, it would be weird to give differences between the two before introducing one of them
- Yes, done.
- Move the table too, it would be weird to give differences between the two before introducing one of them
- OK, let's try that.
Spot-check
[edit]Checking every 5th ref in general
- Ref-3: Letter #124 ... I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – in conjunction or in connexion
- Ref-6: both big info-dumps ... take the Ring and go, first out of the Shire and then to Mordor.
- Ref-11: You can feel secure inside them ... little hobbit can see his dreams come true.
- Ref-16: Mr. Tolkien's invention is unflagging, ... at least as good as "The Thirty-Nine Steps."
- Ref-23: history of Romance ... new territory.
- Ref-27: the structure. ... Subject: Destroying the Ring
- Ref-31: the Ring will ‘possess’ and ‘devour’ any creature who uses it, ... ‘The very desire of it corrupts the heart’
Overall
[edit]Will review the rest later. Should pass easily, though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, my review is done. Very well written article Chiswick Chap, I didn't find many changes required. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks!
- One change in lead and one change in structure remains. (There was an edit conflict just now, I hope I didn't delete anything by accident) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- One change in lead and one change in structure remains. (There was an edit conflict just now, I hope I didn't delete anything by accident) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Hail Chiswick Chap, of Wikipedia-Tolkien-editors most renowned. It was a well written article, and very easy to review with only minor issues. Passing it to GA. Well done, hope to be as good a WP-editor as you some day. Congrulations on the GA! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- You editors are courteous folk, whatever else you be! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |