Talk:Poetry in The Lord of the Rings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I'm used to working with GA reviewers to resolve any issues large or small promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap, and thank you for your kind words. I have read the article with great interest and, frankly, with joy. It's a very charming and also interesting article. As a side note, me and my partner had a long talk about the books and their poetry this morning after reading this, and it even prompted me to go to my local second-hand bookshop at lunch to see if they have the trilogy. So if that's not a good article, I don't know what is. But on a more formal note, I can also say that the article as far as I can see is already very close to passing the GA review. I've checked it against the six criteria and have found only a few, minor issues. (I'm impressed that you even managed to find three suitable illustrations for the article.) I will list the concerns and questions I have here, and please view them as suggestions which we can discuss. I'll strive to be generous and open-minded in this process, which after all is supposed to be "intentionally lightweight". So here goes:

Thank you very much!

• In the second paragraph of the lead, Some of these were found in Old English poetry: it could be an idea to clarify that “some of these” refer to kinds of poetry, and not to the poems in the LOTR.

Good idea, done.

• In the third paragraph, but that from the 1990s it is starting to receive scholarly attention: consider “but that from the 1990s the poetry has received scholarly attention” or something similar. As it is it seems to imply that this trend will continue, but I don't think we really know that.

Reworded.

• Second paragraph of “Supplementing narrative”: Drout stated that up to 2013, little scholarly effort had been devoted to Tolkien's verse The lead, and also the section about "Technical skill" seems to contradict this, stating that serious efforts began in the 90s – or am I confusing two different things here?

Removed.

• Under the heading “Integral to story”, there are a few direct quotations which, if I understand the criteria correctly, should be supported by inline citations.

Added refs.

• Under the heading “Shire-poetry”: The second part of the sentence Shippey writes that Shakespeare, too, could write Shire-poetry: he was born in Warwickshire, though he moved away from "the Mark" (Mercia) and turned his back on "true tradition". (from “he was born…”) could be removed as it raises more questions than it answers, I think.

Done.

• Under the heading “Oral tradition” there is another direct quotation ("as the spears that the Riders plant in memory of the fallen, as the mounds that they raise over them, as the flowers that grow on the mounds") which would need an inline citation.

Done.

• Shippey states that in The Lord of the Rings, poetry is used to give a direct impression of the oral tradition of the Riders of Rohan: "Where now the horse and the rider?" echoes the Old English poem The Wanderer; "Arise now, arise, Riders of Theoden" is based on the Finnesburg Fragment, on which Tolkien wrote a commentary; and three other elegiac poems, all strictly composed in the metre of Old English verse. This sentence is quite long, perhaps it would be possible to split it up?

Done.

• Under the heading “Signalling power and Romantic mode”: The literary genre, too, in Northrop Frye's classification, is signalled as Romance by the fading away of Elvish songs, mirroring what the Elves know is their own imminent passing, while the number of songs of Men increases. I’m not sure I understand this, do you think it’s possible to clarify it somewhat?

Done by splitting.

• Under “A mixed reception” it seems the subject discussed is Tolkien’s poetry in general, not only in LOTR. I think that’s perfectly fine and even a very good point to bring out, but perhaps a small word of clarification could be inserted here somewhere, so that inattentive readers will be reminded that the scope here is a bit wider?

Done.

-Yakikaki (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm words and the perceptive comments. I've addressed all of them to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt replies. I can't see anything else that would stand in the way for a GA OK. I'm going to pass the article now. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)