Talk:Tolkien's prose style/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sennalen (talk · contribs) 18:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning review Sennalen (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I'll get to it promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I do not note any errors along these lines. Many of the sentences carry multiple clauses, which could be broken into more discrete units of thought, but this is not a requirement for GA. Noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lede does not conform to MOS:OPEN by starting with a neutral description of the topic. Instead it begins with a statement that it has been criticized. (Which I will further address in item 4.) Reordered and reworded. The lede should also be slightly expanded to read as a concise stand-alone version of the article, per MOS:INTRO. Carving off independent clauses into full sentences per the prior suggestion would accomplish most of this expansion. Split several sentences. Guidelines for fiction are followed, relying on secondary sources and avoiding in-universe perspective. Noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I particularly appreciate the clear demarcation of primary and secondary sources. This appears to be a common practice in Tolkien-related articles. Thank you!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Stating that "The 2014 A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien in particular marked Tolkien's acceptance in the literary canon" without a secondary source to that effect may not be consistent with WP:RS/AC. Higgins is a reliable secondary source, reviewing the Companion and stating that it marks such recognition.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing obviously reads like a book excerpt. Spot checking text with Google yields no hits. Noted.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most of this implicitly focuses on the Lord of the Rings, which is rightfully the focus, but Tolkien's posthumously published works are a different kettle of fish when it comes to prose style. There are a couple of mentions of The Silmarillion here, but I think they deserve to be grouped in a section and expanded if possible. At least one notable review of Children of Hurin dwelt on the prose style.[1] Silmarillion mentions grouped. Children of Húrin added.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nothing here seems outside the topic area. Noted.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The contrast between earlier and later perspectives is over-emphasized and framed too much as a contest. The emphatic phrasing "systematically rebuts Stimpson's attack" is not impartial. As already mentioned, it should definitely not be the first statement of the lede. It doesn't even necessarily need to be the first thing in the body just because the criticisms were early chronologically. I would rather inform the reader about what some characteristics of the prose actually are before talking about detractors. Reworded, and (per next item) also regrouped. Going further, per WP:STRUCTURE it would be better not to define a section by hostility. After describing Stimpson's views, Rosebury's reply should immediately follow rather than being somewhere else entirely. This dovetails with a concern I will detail in item 7. Section merged (so R follows S) and renamed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There is no evidence of conflict in the edit log or talk page. Noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The original source of the image does not carry licensing information, but the artist has apparently confirmed to the WMF that it is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 Noted.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It's hard to imagine any better way of rising to the challenge of illustrating prose style using a picture. Noted.
	7. Overall assessment.	At a minimum, the issues in 1b. and 4. need to be addressed before reaching GA status. There is substantial high-quality content here, so I look forward to seeing it refined. Addressed. Something that relates to item 4 but doesn't explicitly fall under the GA rubric is the general ordering of topics could use a more deliberate plan. The "Initial hostile reception" along with everything from "Simple but varied" to the end of the article (including Rosebury's reply) mostly concerns language itself (syntax/diction). There is another theme on the use of langauge as a tool for characterization, which includes most of "Hobbits as mediators of the heroic" through "Distinctive individuality". Grouping sections accordingly would make the article more digestible. Regrouped subsections as indicated.

I do not find the article to presently meet the GA standard, but the potential is there. While the problems are not severe, they are not necessarily trivial to solve. It you prefer, I am content to consider it "on hold" without a particular deadline for now. Sennalen (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing! I find all concerns fully addressed and have no problem endorsing this as a Good Article. Sennalen (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]