Talk:Phial of Galadriel

The Phial of Galadriel

Fortunate Girl (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This is a nice little article! I've put in a quick request to have it moved from its current title to Phial of Galadriel.

— Moriwen (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phial of Galadriel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 01:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I see that this was initially translated from the French-language Wikipedia article. It kind of shows, in places; the writing style is different from your usual one (apart from the "Analysis" section). This is not something that necessarily needs to be fixed, just an observation.
  • Copy-edited for British English.

Lead

• The WP:LEAD does not seem to summarize the contents of the "Concept and creation" section.
  • Added.

Narrative

• This section is rather brief, which is not a problem in itself, but I don't think it does a great job of establishing the necessary context for readers not already familiar with Tolkien's work. I would, for instance, mention here that Frodo was not the only one who got a gift from Galadriel when the Fellowship left Lothlórien.
  • Extended, edited.

• Galadriel offers the Phial to Frodo when the Fellowship of the Ring leaves Lothlórien – the link from "Fellowship of the Ring" goes to the book The Fellowship of the Ring, which I'm guessing is not the intention.
  • Fixed.

• the light it emits helps the hobbits fight Shelob – you and I (and most people reading this article, probably) know that "the hobbits" are the aforementioned Frodo and Sam, but an uninitiated reader might not.
  • Led in to the paragraph.

• I'm not sure the quote adds much here.
  • It gives the tone and style of Tolkien's description of the Phial, indicating among other things its history and supernatural quality.
    • Very well. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Frodo leaves Middle-earth for The Grey Havens – not the right preposition.
  • Fixed.

Concept and creation

• Would a link to Constructing The Lord of the Rings be appropriate here? I have not yet read that article (might review its WP:Good article nomination next).
  • Added.

• When Tolkien reached – I would give the full name here at first mention in the body.
  • Done.

• other members of the Fellowship – again, the link goes to the book The Fellowship of the Ring. We do not seem to have an article on the company/group of characters itself (though we apparently used to, years ago, at Fellowship of the Ring (characters)).
  • Linked, and maybe we should have, as it's a distinctive entity which certainly carries symbolism.

Analysis

• The Phial links the Third Age events of The Lord of the Rings to the tales of the Elder Days in The Silmarillion. – I would note, as Fisher does, that Galadriel herself also links the two.
  • Added.
    • Fisher says indeed, Galadriel is a living bridge. I tweaked it to reflect this. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Burns's "Spiders and Evil Red Eyes: The Shadow Sides of Gandalf and Galadriel" is also included in Perilous Realms, if you prefer citing that.
  • Added.

• a guide-figure such as Dante's Beatrice – should probably include a link to the Divine Comedy somewhere for context/clarity.
  • Added.

• ... but it's also a bit questionable whether Downey's analysis belongs in this article at all or only in the Galadriel article. The Phial is a very minor point in the analysis that does not get much attention from Downey.
  • Noted; the quotation given in the text is a sufficient reason here.
    • Alright then. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• the sacrament of baptism – it should be noted which religion this relates to.
  • Added.

• I might include Fisher's lembas/Eucharist point.
  • I wonder if we should really go there in this article.
    • Fair enough. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• in line with Christ's words – I'm fairly certain that we're supposed to use "Jesus" rather than "Christ" to abide by religious WP:NPOV (compare MOS:MUHAMMAD). Similarly, the Virgin Mary should probably be "Mary, mother of Jesus".
  • Done.

Adaptations

• This is basically just an index of adaptations, which is fine if sources on the topic don't go into it more than that. In that case, relying on primary/non-independent sources is also fine. That being said, there doesn't seem to be any source for Howe?
  • Added.

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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   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:

   No obvious omissions.

   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.

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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Almost there.

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

And there we go, the article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.