Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo, Chiswick Chap. I'll take this one. I'll will give my initial remarks in a few hours or so. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Pre-readthrough remarks

Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• tor.com is now reactor, update the urls and the publisher name; also, the web page says "Blog", so are you sure it's reliable enough?  Done
  • Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
    • The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
      • Fixed. I normally use sfn when there are sources (usually books) reused with different page numbers.

• are any free-images available for Book II: say their journey from Rivendell to Amon Hen, or the council of Elrond, or something like that
  • Nothing usable; all the commercial images (and Tolkien's own) are in copyright.

I'll go section by section

Lead

• Are numbering like 1), 2) allowed in the text (sorry, I'm not familiar with this part of the MOS)  Done
  • I'd say so, but let's do without them.
    • I just noticed- the lead gives 3 reasons for the structure, the structure mentions two under "Homely Houses", so you should add it, or if it's under "Cycles and Spirals"- add a subtitle of "continual rewriting"
      • Added "much reworking" to 'Groping for a story'.

Title and publication

• he called "books" along with: comma between books and along  Done
  • Added.

Contents

all  Done

• I think you should mention the two versions of the Hobbit, and why Tolkien changed it, in the prologue
  • Added a footnote.

• Explain Crickhollow
  • Glossed.

• an ancient tree - tree-spirit would be better, perhaps?
  • Let's try that.

• perhaps the future- phrase this better
  • Done.

• Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo: I think you should explain the seductive power of the ring here or before.
  • Done.

Reception

I took the liberty of moving the reviews/paragraphs around a bit to make it easier to read and feel more thematic, feel free to revert

• The volume was favourably reviewed by nature writer Loren Eiseley. The literary critic Edmund Wilson however wrote an unflattering review entitled "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!"[18]: Expand on these a little, at least a sentence or two each  Done
  • Added.

Structure

• His friends had to tell him to cut back the Hobbit-talk.: Umm, who said this? Is this part of the preceding quote?  Done
  • Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
    • Not the pronoun, I meant that it looks like the sentence should be in quotes
      • Not a quote. I've spelt out who the people were who told T. off about this.

* Frodo's five "Homely Houses": I don't think the diagram needs a heading

• • It doesn't have one... perhaps the reordering per the next item will make this clearer.
    • I see

• I think "groping for a story would be better before deliberately constructed  Done
  • OK, let's try that.
    • Move the table too, it would be weird to give differences between the two before introducing one of them
      • Yes, done.

Spot-check

Checking every 5th ref in general

• Ref-3: Letter #124 ... I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – in conjunction or in connexion
• Ref-6: both big info-dumps ... take the Ring and go, first out of the Shire and then to Mordor.
• Ref-11: You can feel secure inside them ... little hobbit can see his dreams come true.
• Ref-16: Mr. Tolkien's invention is unflagging, ... at least as good as "The Thirty-Nine Steps."
• Ref-23: history of Romance ... new territory.
• Ref-27: the structure. ... Subject: Destroying the Ring
• Ref-31: the Ring will ‘possess’ and ‘devour’ any creature who uses it, ... ‘The very desire of it corrupts the heart’

Overall

Will review the rest later. Should pass easily, though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, my review is done. Very well written article Chiswick Chap, I didn't find many changes required. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks!

One change in lead and one change in structure remains. (There was an edit conflict just now, I hope I didn't delete anything by accident) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hail Chiswick Chap, of Wikipedia-Tolkien-editors most renowned. It was a well written article, and very easy to review with only minor issues. Passing it to GA. Well done, hope to be as good a WP-editor as you some day. Congrulations on the GA! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You editors are courteous folk, whatever else you be! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·