Talk:Plants in Middle-earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chiswick Chap, I would be reviewing this article!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

There are not many comments from me here, the article is really well-written (as almost all Tolkien-related aricles), though I will add some comments.

• " of frozen cold lessen in his side;" - should probably be a full stop?
  • OK, let's risk it!

• "...Early in the history of Arda, he introduced the Two Trees of Valinor..." - maybe "Tolkien introduce", as he wasn't mentioned in this section previously
  • Done.

• "Stéphanie Loubechine describes the opposing roles" - she needs some introduction
  • Glossed.

• "Curry comments however that Tolkien's trees are never just symbols, also being individuals in the narrative." - I don't really understand how the trees are individuals in the narrative, maybe this idea can be expanded somehow?
  • Good idea. Extended the Curry section, adding examples and quotations.

• "David Galbraith of the Royal Botanical Gardens (Ontario) " - is he a botanist there? I don't know whether any clarification is needed, I'm fine with current phrasing, just curious.
  • Yes, he's the head of science there.

• External links: first link is duplicate of wikibooks, and about the second one - maybe the book it is about can be added as "Further reading" with the link as a ref? I think that by itself the link doesn't add anything to the topic, but the book is related.
  • Removed. We don't need it in Further reading as well.

• And just a question - maybe some section about the Ents should be included? They are not "plants", but they are trees, so in my view they should be at least mentioned.
  • Mentioned and wikilinked Ents and Treebeard.

All the images are appropriately licensed, fair use rationals provided. Sources are well-structured, though I'll take a day or two to check quotes. That's all for now, will return to it tomorrow. Artem.G (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response! The expansion on individual trees is great, and the article seems to be in a very nice shape. I've checked several references and everything is ok; and I think it's a pass Thanks for a great article! Artem.G (talk) 08:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)