Talk:Finwë and Míriel/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Gosh that was quick! Thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• For the record, I have tweaked the references a bit (mainly to include links where the sources can be read online).

• No worries.

• I would suggest merging the two Fontenot references since they are two parts of a whole. Personally, I would use Template:Multiref2 for this.

• Done. It's ingenious, but does result in a slight loss of information (is part 1 or part 2 applicable), in return for some measure of tidiness.

Lead

• The infobox says that "Curufinwë" is Finwë's true name, rather than Fëanor's.

• Fixed.

• King of the Noldor – I would write "Noldor Elves" for clarity.

• Done.

• Finwë is the first King of the Noldor to lead his people on the journey from Middle-earth to Valinor – I would write "[...], who leads" (including the comma) to avoid readers misinterpreting this as "the first of many".

• Fixed.

• uniquely among immortal Elves – this might be a good place to include a link to Elves in Middle-earth. Implemented while I did the review.

• Done.

• Tolkien's legendarium is linked twice in the lead.

• Fixed.

• Tolkien called Míriel's decision to die disastrous – for someone reading this for the first time, "decision to die" kind of comes out of nowhere (and sounds a bit like a euphemism for suicide). I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be.
  • Reworded.
    • "let go of life" works. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• linking it to the Biblical Fall of man – is "linking" the right word here (and not, say, "likening")?

• Reworded.

• Curufinwë, means "Skill-Finwë" – this should probably mention that it means this in one of Tolkien's constructed languages.

• Done.

History

• I would call this "Fictional history", "Narrative", or something similar. Probably "Fictional history" for consistency with e.g. Noldor, Fëanor, and Silmarils.

• Done.

• awoke at Cuivienen – missing diacritics, and the link leads nowhere useful (Cuivienen and Cuiviénen redirect to different places, for some reason). I would also probably gloss this.

• Fixed those, and glossed.

• live with them in Valinor – I would gloss.

• Done.

• The Vanyar, alone of the Eldar, had immediately gone to Valinor when summoned, and never left. – I would probably just say "Elves" rather than "Eldar", but this seems out of chronology? Finwë's marriage to Indis long precedes the Flight of the Noldor.
  • Elves it is. The Vanyar went to Valinor (green arrow on map, pointing left) long before the Flight of the Noldor (red arrows, pointing right).
    • Indeed. My point is that it's a bit odd to bring up the Vanyar being unique in never leaving Valinor when the Noldor had at this point not done so either. Or am I reading the sentence incorrectly? TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed. The 'and never left' is of course a forward reference, but given that this is a gloss on their character, it makes sense. If you don't like it, let's leave them unglossed.
        • Works for me. We already have the "Fair-Elves of Ingwë" description here and in the "In Middle-earth" section above, and I think that's sufficient. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Fëanor comes to resent Finwë's other children, his half-brothers – either "other children, his half-siblings" or "other sons, his half-brothers".

• Sons it is.

• During Melkor's – gloss.

• Done.

• exiled from Tirion – gloss.

• Done.

• and the First Kinslaying – I would both link and gloss.

• Done.

• This directly leads to the Flight of the Noldor, which culminates in the disastrous rebellion of the Noldor against the Valar and the First Kinslaying. – I don't know that I would say that it culminates in this and the cited source doesn't either.
  • Fixed.
    • Rephrasing is an improvement, but I don't think the Fontenot source really verifies this. A different source should be used (primary would work just fine). TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Done.

• Meriel – typo.

• Fixed.

• in the Halls of Mandos – I would gloss.

• Done.

• What is the Fontenot source meant to verify?

• Removed.

Analysis

• I would link Tolkien scholar.

• Done.

• The Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger writes [...] some of them. – this seems to mainly reiterate the events of the "In Middle-earth" subsection?

• Cut down.

• The Elves, in fact, make choices according to their ancestry, creating the first Sundering of the Elves. – this is something of a non sequitur.

• See next.

• The first paragraph of Flieger analysis seems like a better fit for Elves in Middle-earth and/or Sundering of the Elves. Perhaps there is something that I am missing.

• Removed.

• his typical mixture of background philosophy and story telling – I'm not sure I understand this part.

• Removed.

• His fire then drives [...] across the sea in Beleriand. – this sentence is so long as to impede readability. I would also be inclined to attribute the etymological analysis to Flieger WP:INTEXT. This might be a good place to use a diagram/table, which I see you've included in the Fëanor article.

• Split, and attributed. And, seeing as I have one here in the workshop, ...

• formulas for "woman" included "weaver" and "embroideress" – "formulas"?

• Edited.

• Tolkien indeed wrote – "indeed" is a MOS:Word to watch. In this case, I think it falls on the wrong side of Wikipedia appearing to endorse Dickerson's analysis rather than just reporting it.

• Removed.

• I might link Laws and Customs among the Eldar.

• Done.

• The heading "Sub-creation" seems a bit odd.
  • It's a very Tolkien term, mentioned in the section; I've linked it.
    • I meant that it was an odd choice to use as a heading for this section. Is that really what the section is mainly about? TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Let's try 'Philosophical themes', then. Feel free to tweak this as you like.
        • Works for me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would link Paul the Apostle. I also think it should be "Paul the Apostle", in keeping with the naming conventions.

• Done.

• I would probably link Bible.

• Done.

• New comment: Fontenot writes a fair amount about Míriel. At least some of it should be included. I found the stuff about the different stages in the development of the character pretty interesting, for example. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Added a paragraph.
    • Fantastic. This source is quite a goldmine, really. There's more to include such as Fontenot's discussion of the varying length of time between Fëanor's birth and Míriel's death in different drafts and the implications thereof, if you want to, but I won't insist upon it for the purposes of WP:GA (though I would for WP:FA). TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Summary

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:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, 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 think some of Fontenot's analysis of Míriel should be included in the "Analysis" section.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See my comments above.

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) 14:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ping TompaDompa: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Splendid! We are done here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)