Talk:Shelob/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the article and for responding to my comments. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Copyvio check - reviewed all matches over 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, no concerns. The top match mentions that the text is copied from Wikipedia.

Images

• Phial of Galadriel - I'm not convinced that this should be included. If it is, then probably needs a bit more detail in the caption to show that it is (as I understand it) an original work based on Tolkein's descriptions.

• Added.

• Opposed archetypes - the citation is there, but how about adding Grant's name to the caption? My browser didnt want to go to the link for security concerns, so happy to AGF on the use of the source.

• Added.

• Rationale for use of the film still is OK. Fafnir and Sigurd image is CC.

• Noted.

Fictional history

• Seems to me like The Two Towers should be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article, maybe here?

• Mentioned.

• What's the source for "instead of chelicerae"?

• Added ref, moved to footnote.

• "In the story," seems redundant given that the section is titled "fictional history", but no real harm in keeping it.

• Noted.

• Her eventual fate, "this tale does not tell." might be worth expanding, unless you think that in context the "this tale" will be obvious to readers.

• Added a gloss.

Name

• "Old English attercoppe (meaning "spider") is derived from atter meaning "poison" and coppe meaning "head"; the OE term is a loan from Old Norse language and survives in modern Danish as edderkop, spider." is uncited.

• Cited.

Analysis

• I think "randy" is informal.

• Ok, lustful it is.

• "Freudian vagina dentata (toothed vagina)" - the source seems, strangely, to have "Freudian vagina dentata (teethed vagina). Can you convince me that we should accept the MOS:SEAOFBLUE because the link to Freud is appropriate under MOS:LINKQUOTE?

• Well, it's hardly oceanic, with only two links and one of them in italics.

• OK, what about toothed/teethed? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• That's just a grammatical error: the meaning is plainly the same, and in any case vagina dentata is the primary term.

• OK, as per MOS:SIC, "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Amend the citation for Millbank to show that Bassam and Bronson are the editors, Millbank is the author, and to include the chapter title.

• Done.

• Having browsed through JSTOR, I'm seeing statements like "I note that Much has been made of Shelob , a descendant of Ungoliant, as a symbol of Tolkien's fear of female sexuality" [1]; and "Shelob herself is a bloated symbol of devouring female lust" [2] that, alongside sources used in the article, suggest that including the "sexual monster" section is justified. However, it seems that there are also scholars who are less inclined to that interpretation, e.g. [3] (pp71-72); [4] (p.34). I'm inclined to think that at least one contrary view should be included.

• Fair enough, Timmons is in there now.

• Satan's daughter, Sin - seems to me like it might be clearer to read the first part with some semi-colons included, and I'm not sure that there should be a colon rather than a comma, but I'm not a punctuation expert so consider these changes optional.

• Done, we'll risk the anti-semicolonites' wrath (which rivals the Big-Endian vs Little-Endian wars of Jonathan Swift).

Adaptations

• What makes Radio Riel a reliable source? (Live page not found, but it's on archive.org so a link can be added if the reference is retained.)

• It's a respectable broadcaster. Added archive link.

• I've amended the archive link. Author can be added. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to support most of the paragraph it's used for. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Trimmed.

• The EW source doesn't support much of the paragraph it's attached to.

• Trimmed.

Namesakes

• No issues.

• Noted, thanks.

Sources

• Optional as several academic sources are already used: I am used to seeing some commentary from Tom Shippey in LOTR articles, is there anything to add from him?

• Oddly he barely mentions her, and only in a list of evil "things".

• There is a link to tolkiengateway.net for the poem. Is this a reliable source? (Looks like user generated content.) Is it acceptable from a copyright perspective?

• The primary citation is to Tolkien; removed the link.

Infobox and lead

• Is the infobox description as spider accurate? The lead has "fictional demon in the form of a giant spider". On the other hand, it looks like sources refer to the character as a spider.

• She's definitely evil, and certainly in the form of an enormous spider. Ref T1.

• "The monstrous Gollum deliberately leads the Hobbit protagonist Frodo there in hopes of recovering the One Ring by letting Shelob attack Frodo." - should be added to fictional history (and retained in the lead)

• Done.

• Is "Phial of Galadriel" a likely target for a stand-alone article? As a redirect, it doesn't look quite right appearing in bold in the lead.

• We could unbold it, but it's actually an important concept here, as it is the device that saves the hobbits and enables them to defeat Shelob (along with Sam's courage), and it links them with Galadriel and the symbolism of light. It's getting 1000 hits a year at the moment.

• "Sam's erect sword" - is the "erect" in multiple sources?

• One is enough for a single fact; we have multiple RS [4][5][6][7] for the sexual symbolism of Sam's encounter with Shelob.

Neutrality, breadth, depth - The only issue I found about balance (sexual monster) has been addressed. Article adheres to NPOV, and, based on what I see in sources, the article has sutable breadth and depth for a GA.

Edit wars? - Some recent blanking of sections by an IP editor currently blocked. I'll take another look later.

• Indeed. If they persist we'll need page protection.

• I see that in the notes to the criteria, "Reverted vandalism" does not apply when considering stability, so no blocker here to GA as the edits I was concerned about are more in the way of vandalism than actual content disputes. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)