Jump to content

Talk:Thingol/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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful comments. All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • For the record, I have added a couple of links to the references for ease of verification.
    • Noted.

Lead

[edit]
  • I would indicate which figure in the Loback illustration is Thingol.
    • Done.
  • Depicted as the King of Doriath, King of the Sindar, High-king and Lord of Beleriand – "depicted as"?
    • Removed.
  • King of the Sindar – I would write "Sindar Elves" for clarity.
    • Done.
  • Alone among the Elves, he married a Maia, the angelic being Melian. – I might rephrase to describe the Maiar, rather than Melian, as angelic.
    • Done.

Etymology and characteristics

[edit]
  • Quenya and Sindarin should be noted as constructed languages.
    • Done.
  • I would drop the second sentence, move the first sentence to the "Analysis" section, and add some of Flieger's analysis of the name.
    • Done.

Fictional history

[edit]
  • as ambassadors of Valinor – ambassadors to Valinor, no? Also gloss.
    • Done.
  • one of the Silmarils – I would gloss and try to make the significance a bit clearer ("priceless jewels" or similar).
    • Done.
  • the Noldor city of Nargothrond – should probably mention that this is after the fall of Nargothrond.
    • Done.
  • The Sons of Fëanor, who had sworn a terrible oath to recover the Silmarils on behalf of their father – I think this needs even more context to be understandable to someone not already familiar with the story of Fëanor and the Silmarils. The two main things that need to be mentioned are that the Silmarils were created by Fëanor and stolen by Morgoth. This could be added here, or in the preceding paragraph in the context of Beren recovering one of the Silmarils. I think the latter might work better.
    • Done, in the preceding paragraph.

Analysis

[edit]
  • This section switches from the present tense ("Flieger writes", "Burns states") to the past tense ("Evans observed", "Coutras drew") towards the end.
    • Fixed.
      • Some in-universe details are still given in the past tense (e.g. "he turned away from the Light", "brought about the downfall") while others are in the present tense (e.g. "Sindarin becomes the most prevalent Elven tongue", "when he receives the Silmaril", "they are each betrayed"). TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed.
  • in terms of plot they make sense in terms of his politics and dynastic needs – a bit repetitive, phrasing-wise.
    • Fixed.
  • the Kinslaying at Alqualondë perpetrated by the Noldor on the Teleri – definitely at least link Kinslaying for context, and perhaps expand.
    • Linked and glossed.
  • perpetrated by the Noldor on the Teleri – this would be a good point to remind the reader that Thingol himself is one of the Teleri. Flieger does.
    • Done.
  • Robley Evans, writing in Mythlore, draws a parallel between Thingol and the Noldor – my reading of what Evans writes is that the parallel is not with the Noldor collectively, but with Fëanor specifically. I would keep all of Evans' analysis in one place.
    • Done.
  • part of the tightly-woven trap of The Silmarillion – the meaning of this is not readily apparent.
    • Reworded.
  • There are three Hidden Elvish Kingdoms including Doriath; these were founded by three relatives, including Thingol; and they are each betrayed and destroyed; they are each penetrated by a mortal Man, again all relatives, in Doriath's case Beren; and the sense of Doom, which Shippey glosses as "future disaster", hangs heavy over all of them in the tale. – this is a bit rough to read.
    • Reworded.
  • I would list the destroyed Elvish cities/Kingdoms in the order of their destruction and add in what year of the First Age they were destroyed. If sourceable, I would also add the year each Man entered them.
    • Reordered. I've avoided putting in dates, as it comes across as offputtingly in-universe and redolent of Tolkien fandom, not to mention introducing a whole new level of detail and complexity. But listing in order of destruction is certainly helpful.
      • Alright. I think the proximity in in-universe time lends further weight to Shippey's argument, but I see your point. It would perhaps be a better fit in some other (as-yet unwritten?) article. TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that she resembles – MOS:SAID. Resemblance is in the eye of the beholder.
    • Fixed.
  • Evans observed – MOS:SAID. This goes beyond mere observation.
    • Fixed.
  • the Doom of Mandos – gloss.
    • Done.
  • Coutras drew attention – Coutras is restating the analysis of Rawls and Hopkins.
    • Reworded and cited both.
      • Scholars of literature including Melanie Rawls and Lisa Hopkins draw attention to Thingol's depiction is not entirely correct. Coutras compares what Rawls says about Thingol and Melian to what Hopkins says about Tuor and Idril. TompaDompa (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rewritten.
  • Thingol's later depiction as a prideful king – "later" depiction?
    • Removed.
  • New comment: Elu, ends in "u", which resembles the negative Ú- in "Úmanyar" – I don't find this comparison in the second edition of Splintered Light. Is it in the first edition? TompaDompa (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the 1983 edition here. Hm, I'm not surprised she removed this in later versions, it does seem doubtful: after all, "Eru" ends in "u". Let's cut it.

Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See my comments above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    See my comments above.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I'm missing Flieger's analysis of the name. Since added.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No obvious neutrality issues. Opinions are clearly distinguished from facts and attributed as appropriate.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All media use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some final copyediting of my own, and will now promote the article. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thingol/GA1&oldid=1137865021"