Talk:Tolkien's legendarium/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Michael Martinez (talk · contribs) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to review this article.Michael Martinez (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right; I see that you are aware of the community's discussions at WP Talk:GAN.

The six GA criteria are intentionally "light-touch", involving normally a single reviewer looking over a colleague's work in a friendly way, rather than the more critical attitude characteristic of a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) review involving multiple reviewers. The goal is to ensure that "the main points" are covered, as opposed to the "comprehensive" coverage required at FAC, where I have no intention of taking this article. That means that perfection is not required. GAN is not an immediate pass/fail process unless an article is obviously completely unready with no reliable sources and so forth. The process involves the reviewer reading the article and checking it against the six GA criteria. Discrepancies are listed on the GAN page (i.e. this one here) as items to be actioned; this means that they are clear and definite items which can be actioned directly, such as by fixing a spelling or adding a citation. The process is meant to take a few days, sometimes a week.

My habit as nominator is to work closely together with reviewers, responding promptly to comments and working to bring the article up to the "decent" quality that GA status implies. I've worked with a wide range of reviewers, from university professors to historians to simple folk; the key quality required of reviewers is a willingness to collaborate to improve the article to meet the criteria. Let's get to it and make a success of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some initial feedback on the article from my review. First of all, the [Good Articles] article recommends allowing a 1-week hold for the review: "As the nominal hold period is one week (this is a suggestion, not a requirement) one rule of thumb is to consider whether the issues you have raised could reasonably be fixed within such a timescale." So let me say that because of the digression that occurred a few days ago, I felt it would be helpful to let some time pass so everyone could follow the review discussion without further excitement. And I also thought I wouldn't find much in the review process. But I'm not sure if Chiswick Chap will come back (Haleth advised him to stay away). Not that Chiswick Chap needs to do that. In reviewing the history of edits, I see that Chiswick Chap's contributions improved the article, so my recommendations below address - at least in some cases - some long-standing issues with the article. I think they can be fixed relatively quickly. And though reviewers can edit the articles they're reviewing to help bring them up to GA standards, in this case I'm going to leave it to others to consider my recommendations.

I'd like to keep discussion open for a few more days - perhaps until next Sunday (June 13 - midnight Eastern Daylight Time) before finishing the review. Please read what follows before deciding whether you agree or disagree. I'll take people's thoughts into consideration.

That's fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments

Minor details that could be easily fixed (not review killers IMO).

The article title doesn't follow Wikipedia capitalization standards. I believe it should be "Tolkien's Legendarium", not "Tolkien's legendarium".

I'm not averse to changing it, but I think it's actually correct here. The capital letter is normally reserved for actual titles, but "legendarium" is here a descriptive noun, so per the MoS it seems to be the right choice. (In any case, we can't readily change it now because the other capitalisation is in use for the book that you mention next, and if we managed to change it, it would cause an automatic procedural fail because the original title wouldn't be found.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't disambiguate from the title of the 2000 book, [Legendarium: Essays on the History of Middle-earth]. Now, that Wikipedia article disambiguates from this article (which only mentions the title of the book at the bottom of the page in "Works Cited"). I recommend adding the disambiguation link above the Summary.

I've added it to the 'See also' list as it applies to this article rather than being a separate usage to be disambiguated from it.

I think the Summary is a bit long. It just seems to me that it goes into a little too much detail. I'm happy to accept a second opinion on that.

OK, trimmed.

Section 3.3 (A context for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) probably should cite John Rateliff's discussion (in a footnote) of the relationship of The Hobbit to The Silmarillion. John's research on the history of the book disclosed the fact that it was originally set in the world of Beleriand, but he explained how Tolkien removed those elements. This is a minor point but Rateliff is considered the authority on the Hobbit text. NOTE: If editors agree with me, then I believe the Summary should be updated to refer to John's conclusion.

Good idea, added a mention.

Comments

These are more serious issues (that can be fixed).

There are errors of fact, interpretation, or omission in the 3rd paragraph of the Summary. In the Appendix to The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien indicated he would publish The Silmarillion, so the book's success didn't inspire him to return to the older writings. He simply finished LoTR first and then turned back to the older material (and then digressed into new essays, etc.).

Fixed.

Also, the paragraph refers to "the legendarium project", which is a phrase neither JRRT nor Christopher Tolkien ever used. I would drop "project" here.

Done.

Finally, the sentence referring to the various "many volumes of Tolkien's works and story drafts" probably should link to either a section of the present article that provides a list or an appropriate Wikipedia article that lists them. I'm aware of the [Tolkien bibliography] article but need to close out this comment soon so I can't think of a better resource. I don't think the bibliography would be helpful in this context.

I've linked J. R. R. Tolkien bibliography#Posthumous publications to identify the Christopher T. works specifically, that seems the best option here as it spans the 12 vols of HoME and other edited stories.

The paragraph asserting John Rateliff defined the Legendarium to consist of a number of specific texts refers to an irrelevant page (607) of The History of The Hobbit. I believe this is most likely a mistaken reference to the p. 900 index entry for "The Silmarillion tradition", which lists all those texts plus "Lays of Beleriand". I don't know how long ago that error was introduced into the current article. I scanned the book for some discussion of the Legendarium but couldn't find anything specific. The non-Hobbit stories are referred to throughout the book and the index only cites passim. for many of those contexts.

Fixed, that index page does seem to be the best solution.

I will come back in a day or two to add more comments. If I can finish this review before next weekend, I will. Thank you everyone for your patience.Michael Martinez (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

My apologies for taking so long to finish up. I've been interrupted every time I came back to this article this week.

I see nothing in the remaining sections that would justify closing the review with anything other than a pass. However, the final section, currently titled "A Presented Collection", could use further improvement. Now, I've debated with myself whether this in any way merits a "fail" and I don't think it does for the following reasons.

The article doesn't have to be perfect, just good. I think it's good (according to Wikipedia criteria).
The section title is vague but I'm not sure changing it to "A Framed Presentation" would be any more meaningful to the casual reader. If further improvements are discussed on the Talk page, then I think people should think about the title.
The scope of what scholars think or say about (what the Legendarium is or isn't) is incomplete. I spent some time browsing the literature - which is immense - I think it would be near impossible for any article to be exhaustive. And then Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be exhaustive. A little too much weight may currently be given to Nagy's POV but given the large number of citations he's earned, I don't think that's a problem, either. It may be that my thoughts about this section would be better addressed through the [frame stories] article, and then the summary revised after that work has been done.

In other words, there isn't a problem that needs fixing. But anyone who has spent time reading the literature knows this section doesn't do much more than scrape the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, the use of "legendarium" in the literature dwarfs the discussion of what it is. I suppose if someone assembles a bibliography for such discussions, it would make the task of representing it encyclopedically much simpler.

I won't close the review just yet, in case anyone wants to comment.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the guidelines, I'm closing the review with a Pass. Congratulations. Michael Martinez (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digression

We have time to discuss my concerns about the article. This will go more smoothly if you desist with the condescension and accusations. I am well aware of the process. This is an opportunity for you to take all comments in a constructive manner and consider how the article can be improved before I submit my final review. That will be a much more productive path forward.

Here is the original point I made in my previous review initiation: "The article itself makes numerous statements of fact - contradicting previous article assertions - without providing references."

Now, you didn't discuss any of these changes in the Talk page before making them. My concern is that the article does not present a neutral point of view. Here's a great opportunity for you to discuss the changes you made.Michael Martinez (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a GAN requirement to do that, nor is it necessary unless other editors challenge ongoing work. It will not have escaped your notice that the article had been edited very little since 2008; it was in a poor state and I've worked to improve it. This is normal practice on Wikipedia. I have no "side" in terms of opinion on Tolkien's legendarium, but have sought, using a very wide array of sources, to present the situation as it stands, and the history, to the best of my ability, so I have been and remain strictly neutral. I believe that answers your comments to date, which are however so general as to be difficult to discuss or action, especially as they appear both to me and to colleagues in the three recent discussions (GA1, GAR of Women in The Lord of the Rings, and WP Talk:GAN) to be mistaken in terms of Wikipedia policy. I will continue to answer all your comments as best I can (tomorrow, busy this evening), so as to bring the article to GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about taking sides in definitions of Tolkien's "legendarium". This is about determining whether there is a bias in your extensive rewrites of an article that was stable for a long time. One of the criteria for Good Article review is whether the article is stable. You have made more than 60 changes since the beginning of January, most of them in May. So that's a major red flag. You say it was in a poor state. Perhaps. But such a large number of edits with no accompanying discussion on the Talk page is highly unusual behavior. So I'm asking you to explain why you feel the article needed so much revision and when you anticipate discontinuing the continuous revision.Michael Martinez (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, making multiple edits is certainly not a sign of bias. When I am adding new material, say paraphrasing a scholar's argument, I may add a single paragraph of some thousands of bytes in a single edit, cited and attributed to that scholar. When I am copy-editing a text, I may make a dozen edits, some of them of only a few bytes, it's just a style of editing. So, it is no part of the stability criterion that, to bring an article up to speed, multiple edits were made by the revising editor. "Instability" means serious edit-warring, prolonged for weeks, and in particular continuing through the period of GAN so that there is no stable text to review, not the case here, so it is emphatically not a "red flag". I have finished the pre-GAN revision, and will make no more edits (unless I spot obvious typos) until I begin the GAN responses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Martinez, as reviewer, it is your responsibility to state on this review where and in what ways, in your opinion, the article currently fails the neutrality criterion; specifically, where it is not the case that it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Also, if there are places where it makes unsourced statements of fact, those need to be listed by you so the nominator can add sourcing or remove material that cannot be sourced. It is not up to the nominator to discuss their past edits, but yours to point out any ways in which the resulting article misses the mark with regard to the various GA criteria, if it does. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset "as reviewer, it is your responsibility to state on this review where and in what ways, in your opinion, the article currently fails the neutrality criterion; specifically, where it is not the case that..." Please refrain from facetious lecturing. My concern is quite clearly and plainly stated. If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion of those concerns, this process will proceed more smoothly without further disruption. Thank you for your consideration.Michael Martinez (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite serious, Michael Martinez; no jocularity nor facetiousness nor condescension was present in my post, and I regret that you didn't see that. It was clear to me—and still is—that you do not truly understand how the GA review process or criteria are supposed to work precisely because of how your concern was stated. I'm sorry you have decided on this path. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Either comment on the proposal or do what a true Wikipedian should do and not cause further disruption.Michael Martinez (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like now is the time to remind everyone of Wikipedia's clique policy (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_soliciting_of_cliques ).

"Do not recruit for creating a class consciousness or to instigate herd mentality "It is considered highly inappropriate to recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they can support your side of a debate in Wikipedia or to instigate group support in a disruptive manner, circumvent usage of a user crossing three-revert rule (3RR) for misusing technical loophole to gain blocks for personal reasons, this might also stem from the user's culture which may lack ethical predisposition in interpersonal communication and the user is individually impulsive than to conform to Wikipedia policies, this could potentially promote an anti-Wikipedia spirit.

"If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from experienced Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are tested processes which are designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another."

The hostile, condescending comments people leave are disruptive and ignoring the point of the discussion. I have 7 days to publish my review of the Good Article nomination. Chiswick Chap doesn't have to answer my questions. My decision will be made based on the Wikipedia record of the text and changes made to it. But this discussion is an opportunity for any contributing editor who made changes without discussing them in the Talk page to give me some insight into why they felt those changes were helpful. I'm not going to start pasting warnings on people's User pages for policy violations. Nor am I planning to hit up the Dispute Resolution or Arbitration boards for help. My review will come in spite of the personal attacks, insinuations, and lectures. But I will greatly appreciate it if you all just discuss the points I've raised and - if you think it will help to explain some of the undocumented edits - to do that, too. Thank you.Michael Martinez (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, it's hard to tell. Are we are privileged witnesses at the emergence of great new comedic talent? Or are you serious? It has been repeatedly clarified for you that to function as reviewer you need to present specific issues in a concrete manner that can be dealt with in workable ways during the review process. And you have been given a number of examples of how to do this. So far you have not presented even one issue that has a workable form. It is not Chiswick Chap's responsibility to explain to you why he changed things from what they were once upon a time. It is your responsibility to explain clearly to Chiswick Chap what, specifically, is wrong with the article as it stands now. Please climb down from your soapbox and provide a list of specific issues that can addressed in practical ways. If you can't do that (and it seems you can't) then you must withdraw your "review" and stop wasting Chiswick Chap's time. — Epipelagic (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's not clear is which of you are cooperating on a hit job and which of you have simply been deceived by Haleth's lies (of which there have been many in recent days). That's neither here nor there. I am NOT going to withdraw from the review. Chiswick Chap panicked and sought "input" from his Wikipedia friends after misinterpreting the purpose of the notice that I placed on his and Haleth's Talk pages (a REQUIREMENT for the community-based GAR I initiated on the [| Women in The Lord of the Rings] article. Chiswick Chap's discussion on the GA Nominations Talk page was quickly derailed by an overzealous response which resulted in the comments and GAR/1 article being removed before I could see and respond to them (an egregious act, considering those reassessment discussions are expected to last 1-2 weeks). Pile on to that Haleth's clear orchestration of an attack campaign on that Talk page and his own (where he falsely accused me of jumping back onto Wikipedia to start editing Tolkien topic articles - I've been active on Wikipedia for years; falsely accused me of claiming to have "credentials"; falsely claimed I'm not cited in academic research - as if that means anything for a Good Article Review; etc.). Worse, he told Chiswick Chap not to engage with me and that I was [| Canvassing] despite the fact it was HE who sent out the alarm calls.

You guys have violated so many Wikipedia policies with your false accusations it's a wonder you haven't been called out for this kind of bullying before. I've stated my concerns clearly more than once. The biggest obstacle right now is all the attack comments. Chiswick Chap doesn't have to answer any questions. But he should try to engage. He was the one who spread these discussions across at least 6 Talk pages. I've spent most of my time asking you guys to stop ganging up and confine your comments to the topics at discussion (you know, the GAR + GAN review). So, if you're all done grandstanding and violating Wikipedia Talk page guidelines, I'd like to spend less time sifting through all the toxic, off-topic commentary and more time preparing for the review. That preparation includes asking questions or asking for second opinions - but I'd like to hear from Chiswick Chap first on some of these issues, without all the hysterical dramatics. So, if you've all QUITE finished, please confine your comments to the topic of discussion - the review. In a normal Talk page, off-topic comments can be deleted by anyone as normal cleanup. That's not really supposed to happen on a GA Review Talk page, so PLEASE do all future reviewers who look at this discussion a favor and stop disrupting it.Michael Martinez (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So can you put your complaints about us to one side for now. If you want to keep a focus on your complaints you could start a new thread away from this review page, and set them out there. But what is needed here is a focus on the article you say you are reviewing. Since you are the reviewer, that focus must be initiated by you. To do that you need to simply start presenting, one by one, specific issues you have with the article that can be addressed in workable ways. Each of the issues you present should fit within the six GA criteria that define what a GA review is. If you do that, I'm sure Chiswick Chap will respond in timely and respectful ways. You might also reread Chiswick Chap's opening statement in this thread. Let's start again from there. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll accept the peaceful call to action.Michael Martinez (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]