Talk:The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a wonderful read, and I'm really looking forward to reviewing this. Guettarda (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

This is excellent work Chiswick Chap and Carcharoth, and I feel bad to nitpick at it, but here goes.

Thank you so much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• While I think that specific appendices should be capitalised (e.g., Appendix D), elsewhere in the article "appendix" isn't a proper noun and shouldn't be capitalised. (Overall the usage isn't consistent - for example, Sarah Workman writes that the relegation of the tale to an Appendix but in the following sentence Tolkien had "reluctantly relegated" the tale to an appendix.)

Good catch. (The only thing worse is Tolkien's capitalisation of races like Hobbit, but an individual hobbit - even he could hardly keep up with the subtlety of the rule there (and it totally threw his typesetters.)

• The only mention of Appendix B is in the final paragraph of the Relegated ending section. This doesn't give the reader any context of what Appendix B is - some sort of explanation of what it's about would be helpful. Can't really assume readers would know what it is.

Added a gloss.

• Reference 20, to Dante's Inferno, should be in the primary sources or notes section, not in the secondary sources, since it Dante doesn't actually address Tolkien.

The 'Primary' reflist, as for all Middle-earth articles, says "This list identifies each item's location in Tolkien's writings." Rather than make an exception here, I've removed the ref and just labelled the Inferno canto in the text.

• I'm concerned that the table comparing Tolkien with Dante creates poses WP:WEIGHT issues. It's only a single sentence in the source, so turning that into a table seems like overkill.

Guettarda (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Understood, but it's only a small portion of the article; the advantage of the table format is clarity in presenting what is quite a confusing set of pairs of relationships. I'd say it more than "pays for itself".

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   It's quote-heavy, so it scores pretty high on the copyvio detector, but I believe the quotes are all used appropriately.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks great. And as a person who got very heavily invested in the story as a teenager, thanks to both of you for doing this. Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)