Talk:The Silmarillion/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 12:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna review this. Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I believe the article is accurate and robustly cited, but I'm happy to work through issues with GA reviewers even if it takes a little time. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Yeah. At first glance, it looks like an excellent article to read. About the incipit:

• "Extensive though incomplete" is a bit confusing as an introduction. I would take it off.

• Gone.

• I would briefly explain what Silmarils are. Even simply: "Silmarils jewels."--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

• Can't you write something about cultural influences in the lead? (e.g. Christianity, Kalevala, Norse mythology).--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Added.

"After he destroyed the two lamps that illuminated the world, the Valar moved to Aman ... Yavanna created the Two Trees, which illuminated Valinor, leaving Middle-earth to darkness and Melkor." Their names are Illuin and Ormal, right? It doesn't change much, but I would specify it. The second sentence is not clear to me. Did Yavanna create the two bright trees and leave the earth into darkness?

• Added the names of the lamps.
• Yes, the trees were on Aman (as shown in the image) and illuminated Valinor there; Middle-earth was dark until the stars mentioned in the next sentence.

Ah, right. I confused Middle-Earth and Arda for a moment.

• "The elves originally formed three groups: the Vanyar, the Noldor, and the Teleri". I don't remember now, but did the Elves split before or after the invitation of Oromë and the Valars? If this is the case, try to put this sentence somewhere after "Many Elves accepted while others refused".

• Rearranged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: That's all for now. Nice work.-- TeenAngels1234 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Chiswick Chap: "Synopsis" is good. However, it should be a little tightened in the "Quenta Silmarillion" central part, because I honestly believe that some name or fact can be cut, especially if secondary and not mentioned in the other sections.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

@Chiswick Chap: Okay. Good work.

More

• "No man received more honor than the brothers Húrin and Huor." Honestly, it sounds a little too poetic for prose. Is there a better way to introduce the characters?

• Fixed.

• "The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings which have each sold over 100 million copies." Isn't there a better source than Quora?

• Replaced.

• "Is" Sketch of the Mythology "a full version of the "Silmarillion" or a synopsis? Both? It's not clear to me. It should be explained better.

• Maybe just 'first' will do here. First version that went from start to end.

• "The Silmarillion is a complex work". I don't know, it sounds a bit POV to me. Perhaps "It is considered a complex work"? "Critics have identified different influences" perhaps?

• Just said 'many sources'. These are enumerated in the paragraph.

• Influences are interesting, but it would be better to specify the opinions of critics and academics as such. For example, "according to X, Medieval Christian cosmology..". It's just an example.

• I'm actually quite keen on naming scholars, but so many of them have gone over the book's sources that really it's a collective effort.

• "The book was, however, a commercial success." "However" is a WTW and should be avoided.

• The word can be tricky but isn't here; I find that a fine example of a duff rule, but I've removed it for you.

• "Nonetheless, a few reviewers praised the scope of Tolkien's creation." Idem for 'nonetheless'. I think a simple "Other critics praised" is better.

• Done.

• Isn't there a more neutral title than "A problematic work"?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done.

@Chiswick Chap: The other sections are great. Just give me a short break so I can reread everything and, if nothing comes up, I'm gonna pass this.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: PS. Don't feel obligated, but if you have some time, I'd love to exchange reviews with "Hedgehog's Dilemma (Neon Genesis Evangelion)". But, again, freerly.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I'll take a look. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Okay. Great article. Just one last thing. The two images in "Synopsis": Can they be made smaller? Maybe with a upright=1.5. The second one should be placed somewhere a little higher, IMHO.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I am happy with this review. Well written article with good sources. Pass.TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)