Jump to content

Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-readthrough remarks

[edit]

Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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.
  • 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'.

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.

* 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
  • 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fixed, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You editors are courteous folk, whatever else you be! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·