Talk:Middle-earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 08:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review this article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, looking forward to working with you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:LEDELENGTH, I'd recommend extending the lede slightly to bring it up to a better length. For example you mention the etymology of the word from Norse mythology, but you could add a bit about the use of the word in Old English and Tolkien's choice of the word. You could also give some examples of those that live in Middle-earth.

Done.

• Tolkien first encountered the term middangeard in an Old English fragment he studied in 1914: is this definitively the first time he encountered it, or the first reported time? You also cite the book The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien so it might be worth saying in the article that he mentioned his encountering of this word in a letter for context.

Yes, and done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• The term "Middle-earth" appears in drafts of The Lord of the Rings, and the first published appearance of the word "Middle-earth" in Tolkien's works is in the Prologue to that work should be reordered chronologically.

Fixed.

• 'Prologue' should be lower-case.

Fixed.

• William Morris's translation of the Volsung Saga calls the world "Midgard" this should be dated.

Added.

• I'm quite concerned about the 'in other works' section. There's nothing to say that the earlier uses of 'middle earth' refer to the same thing. For example, Morris called the world 'Midgard', which might just be his interpretation of the Volsung Saga in the Icelandic language. Also, the references you provide are just translations and don't provide any other commentary relating to the use of the word or the later use by Tolkien. It might be implied that you are reading in between the lines here. And besides, how significant is it that the term had been used before? I hope this makes sense.

Added lead-in sentence by his biographer, Carpenter, relating the term to Midgard, and adjusted wording.

• The eastern side of Middle-earth was washed by the Eastern Sea. not sure what you mean by 'washed' here.

Fixed.

• Not sure there's a need for "(including Britain)".

Reworded.

• There's a rogue speech mark at the start of the third paragraph of the quote.

Removed.

• There's also an asterisk in the quote after 'gap'.

Removed.

• You mention in the lede that the Shire is based off the West Midlands, but when you talk about the Shire in the body of the article there is no mention of this only that it was based on England.

Fixed.

• I don't think you introduce Hobbiton in the article so it may be confusing to a reader to distinguish Hobbiton and the Shire.

Done.

• You provide a quote from Tolkien saying that Minas Tirth is roughly near Florence and later say that in an annotated map, he places it near Ravenna, which is about 100 miles from Florence. It might be worth noting this difference if he made some kind of mistake or misjudgement.

He only specified the latitude; later he indicated it was further to the east than Florence itself, on roughly that same latitude. It's actually typical Tolkien, precise but leaving much unsaid, a distinctively professorial quality demanding *very* close attention from his students.

• Wikilinks to Belgrade, Cyprus and Jerusalem.

Done.

• When you speak of 'Arda' you have italicised the word a handful of times and kept it unitalicised about a dozen times. Please fix this for consistency. You have also wikilinked it more times than you need to.

Fixed, removed overlinks.

• The first such Age began with the Awakening of the Elves during the Years of the Trees and continued for the first six centuries of the Years of the Sun. All the subsequent Ages took place during the Years of the Sun I'm not sure if this is a mistake or not, but you haven't mentioned the Years of the Lamps which you mentioned in the previous sentence. You might just want to check whether you got this right.

Yes, it's right; added a gloss.

• When you wikilink to 'Ilúvatar', it redirects so you should wikilink to the specific section in the article.

Fixed.

• You haven't introduced Ilúvatar. Was he some kind of god, man, elf?

The one god, added.

• Per MOS:REPEATLINK, "generally, a link should appear only once in an article", therefore, the duplicate wikilinks should be removed as mentioned above. For example, the duplicate wikilinks for Ilúvatar, Eä etc.

Removed.

• Middle-earth later (indeed much later) how about just "much later"?

Done.

• The Ents were shepherds of trees not sure if this is an accurate description because the article on Ents says they are like trees. Could be re-worded.

Adjusted.

• Beorn had a number of animal friends about his house Beorn needs an introduction.

Glossed.

• Collectively, the New Line franchise has received a record 37 Academy Award nominations, winning 17, and three special awards, also a record. this sentence doesn't have an citation by it.

Rewritten and cited.

• What's an 'MUD' and 'LPMUD'. Not sure if these are the same things as 'MU*s'.

Well spotted. Wikilinked them, this seems the best thing to do here as explanations would otherwise get lengthy and repetitive.

• Ref 34 needs expanding.

Removed.

• Rest of the references look fine.

Noted, thanks.

• Image captions need to be referenced just like the rest of the article and I'm seeing a few captions that are unsourced so please provide citations.

Done.

The article looks good and once these final comments are addressed, I'll pass for GA. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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.	Written well. No spelling or grammar mistakes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede was a little short, but extended accordingly. Layout is fine and sections are used appropriately.
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.	Multiple captions didn't have citations, but they are now fixed. Body of the article is sufficiently sourced.
	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).	Yes, sources checked and reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There was quite a bit of cross-over between this article and a few other articles, but from some research I think that they copied from this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes. Covers the geography, history and so forth.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Stays focussed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable
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.	Yes, images and diagrams are fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant
	7. Overall assessment.	Passes for GA. Well deserved, happy editing. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)