Talk:Picturing Tolkien/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "film representation" Not "film adaptation"?

• We are not obliged to use any particular phrase. The question of how such a complex book as The Lord of the Rings is to be represented, and whether that approach to representation is successful, however, is central to the collection of essays.

• Fair enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• "The book contains analyses by scholars of film and of literature of Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings from multiple points of view." Put some commas around "by scholars of film and of literature". Also, "from multiple points of view" seems redundant, if there's multiple scholars working on it.

• British English is comfortable with fewer commas than some other styles, but we could obviously consider choosing a mid-Atlantic punctuation style if that would get the review moving: which it obviously won't in this case. As for the multiple viewpoints, it is true if and only if the scholars are speaking with genuinely different voices and have strikingly distinct opinions, which in this well-chosen collection, they do. That is something that definitely isn't true of all collections.

• I'm a native user of British English, I wasn't suggesting using mid-Atlantic punctuation. Good point on the multiple view points. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• "noting that the decade elapsed since the films appeared gave the authors some perspective on the films after the initial heated debate," Only Anne Petty really notes this. Consider cutting down.

Well, she was certainly correct, and her statement about the authors is true of all of them, so it's hard to see what should be cut down in this sentence fragment.

• Fair enough. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Context

• This section is far too long and over-contextual. I think, ideally, a context section like this shouldn't be much longer than a paragraph.

Its job is exactly what it says, to set the book in its CONTEXT, which is a) Tolkien, author of b) The Lord of the Rings and c) Peter Jackson's films of that novel. Hence, three paragraphs.

• First paragraph is literally just the first line of Tolkien's own article.

• Why shouldn't it be? That's designed as a summary, and it works well for that function.

• What does the publication history of LotR and its initial reception have to do with Picturing Tolkien?

• Because the book analyses the Jackson-films-picturing-Tolkien's-book, and the question of how they interact is central to its mission.

• What does the financial figures and the lengths of the movies have to do with Picturing Tolkien?

• Because the book is predicated upon an extremely successful film trilogy, but makes so bold as to criticise it rather than just bowing down to it. So, the degree of success needs at least to be mentioned.

• None of the cited sources verifiably reference Picturing Tolkien, which makes the length of this section even more egregious.

• Um, for a context section, there is precisely no reason why they should do so: that's not their function, nor that of the section. The Context (i.e. what is outside the book) is BY DEFINITION non-overlapping with the content (what is inside the book).

• @Chiswick Chap: Ok, to go over this and figure out what context is necessary, I figured I'd get a hold of Picturing Tolkien and skim through it myself. I was unable to find anything on the books winning the International Fantasy Award, their publication by Ace Books and Ballantine paperbacks resulting in their popularity, or about the literary establishment being hostile to the books. As for the films, I saw mentions of their budget and length (and the comparison of the lengths of the books and movies), as well as their financial success, but without specifying its dollar gross. Looking at it again, with the book in my hand, there are only a few things I think this context section must establish: that Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books were adapted to film; that the films changed and cut content in order to adapt it; and that there was a debate among fans and scholars as to how successful/faithful that adaptation was. I think it's fair to assume some level of base knowledge on who Tolkien was and what the Lord of the Rings is, if someone is reading an article about analysis of that work. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll trim it now. You'd be amazed how often I've been told the opposite at GAN, that Tolkien needs to be given context ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• Trimmed as specified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, nicely done. I think a couple of the sources could still be trimmed. The USA Today, Independent and Decent Films ones stand out to me as easily cut-able, given other sources are cited. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. Removed USA Today and Decent Films; the Indie ref supports the adjective, which in turn is needed to contextualize the book.

I guess I can understand why context on Tolkien is needed when it's an article about analysis specifically on Tolkien and his work. But like for this one, I'm not sure what valuable context is brought to the article by clarifying he was a "Catholic writer and philologist". (Although the book does reference both his Catholicism and his philology, so maybe it's not that big an issue) Grnrchst (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Noted.

Contents

• There's not much to this section, it's literally just the contents of the book. It doesn't really tell us what any of it is about other than just citing the authors and chapter titles. A synopsis would be more ideal, for an article like this.

The contents identifies both the scholars (hence, at least for the bluelinked ones, information by reputation); and the chapter titles, hence hints as to what is in each chapter: and the part headings indicate the book's purpose and structure. If we are to precis each chapter, this would still require the details as given because each chapter is independently written by the named author.

I've gone ahead and written a precis of every chapter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, I think it looks much improved. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Publication history

• This is a very short section that only serves to repeat information from the infobox. Unless more can be added, this is very unnecessary.

• It has to be in the article body. We can't just put it in the infobox, as that relies on cited materials in the article body. I've added a note on the illustrations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the information was unnecessary, I meant it being its own section was. I'm just not a fan of single-line sections, think they look a bit awkward. I think it could work as a subsection of one of the preceding sections though. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, it's a standard section in book articles, and it's part neither of the book's context nor the synopsis. At least it's now two sentences.

Reception

• "like Dimitra Fimi's on folklore, or Flieger's, John D. Rateliff's, or Thompson's," Too many cases of "or", only the last is needed. Also, what are Flieger, Rateliff and Thompson's sections about?

• Read it again: Fimi gets a box to herself; then Fimi/Rateliff/Thompson get a box together. The "or"s are all necessary.

• Punctuation is a bit all over the place in the quote starting with "between folklore in film"
• "and comments that Thompson in her essay states that" Reads a bit odd, consider rewriting slightly.

• I've read through the material again. I'm afraid I'm totally mystified by this comment as the material is appropriately punctuated.

• (he is curator of England's Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds) Bit oddly placed. Can't figure out where else to clarify this detail though.

• As you say, it's got to be somewhere about there, and there's nowhere better to put it really.

• "Leibiger commends the editors" Bit jarring to go from her criticisms of the editors' essays right to this. Maybe include something before like "In the end, Leibiger commends the editors" or "In conclusion" or something.

• Done.

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   A couple minor prose issues here and there.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   The "context" section reads a bit like synth, as none of the cited sources even mention the book. Context section brought closer in line with the contents of the book and the subject of the article.

   As stated above, the point is to set the book in its external context (Author, Novel, Film series), so the sources aren't expected to discuss the book as such.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Most of the sources are in the context section, which is almost entirely unrelated to the subject. Contents are provided without synopsis, so we get no idea about what the book actually contains. Reception section is fine though. Major issues have been rectified, the contents section was expanded into a synopsis and the excess context was cut down.

   Rebutted above.

   b. (focused):

   The vast majority of the context section is absolutely unnecessary detail. Context section has been adequately re-focused on the subject.

   Again, see above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Only one reversion in February 2023.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Cover is fair use. Photo of Ocrist is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this one, as it's a long way from meeting GA requirements, in my opinion. Its primary issue is its coverage. The sourcing for the article is dominated by an overly-long context section that only provides a little information in the way of the debates over the film adaptation that led to the creation of this book. Instead of a synopsis (as in the nominator's recently passed article The Keys of Middle-earth) only the book's contents are provided, without any further information. This leaves only the reception section, in terms of sections that really provide information about the book. Sorry about this Chiswick Chap, I know you must have worked hard on this, I just don't think it's ready for GA yet. If you can retool the context and contents sections, I think this could be resubmitted for GA. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well of course it can be resubmitted; and it would have been helpful to have been given the opportunity to a) discuss the comments and b) to make fixes before the rush to judgement. The context is in no need of "retooling" as it covers the 3 things it needs to cover, briefly and accurately. The contents could be expanded into a precis of every chapter; that is basically overkill as it will result in overlap with the Reception section, i.e. we'll be keeping the scholarly dogs and then barking ourselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to discuss the comments, which you seem to have done quite thoroughly already. I only quick failed this article because I thought it was a long way from meeting GA criteria #3 and I stand by that. Feel free to ask for another opinion. -- Grnrchst (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst: I've explained why the 3-part context is necessary, and added a lead-in sentence there to that effect; and created a precis of every chapter, so it becomes a full Synopsis. I am not sure what you mean by ask for another opinion: the two options I know of are to ask you to reopen the review, which you are free to do now that I've actioned your #3 concerns, or to resubmit and restart from scratch (i.e. wait possibly months for another reviewer). Had you any other mechanism in mind? If you're willing to reopen the review, that would be by far the more convenient approach. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm open to reopening review, if that's an option. I appreciate that I may have been too hasty in quick-failing and I apologise for that. As for the context section, I'm still not sold it being quite this long and detailed, but I'm happy to discuss it further. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, well let's go that route then. Everything is negotiable including the wording of the context section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I've reopened it. I should get to sleep the now but I'll get back to you at some point soon, if not tomorrow then early next week. Grnrchst (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Super. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Ok, all of my major issues with the article have now been addressed and rectified, so I'm now more than happy to pass this review. Thanks for going through this so thoroughly and making these improvements. Apologies once again for the hasty quick-fail. Excellent work. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)