Jump to content

Talk:Finwë and Míriel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Finwë)


A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move March 10 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Finwë → Finwë and Míriel

I am surprised that this short article is untouched by the wave of PROD's, AfD's and merger proposals across the Middle-earth project between 2019 to 2020, since Finwë has always been more of a plot device then a fully formed character and he dies very early in the story. Anyway, reading the prose as well as sources provided on the current version of article gave me the impression that the only significant out-of-universe discussion about Finwë is his story with his first wife, with a whole section under Concept and creation about their contributions to the backstory of their son and its narrative significance, and the complicated circumstances behind their deaths which ultimately inform Fëanor's motivations and the fate of the Noldor. I am not sure if there are further sources which specifically discuss Finwë, but I did find a few more which specifically discuss Miriel here and here, and a full length article with their relationship as the headline here. If such sources were to be added to the article to expand the analysis about the story of Finwë and Míriel and make a case of its significance (and ultimately inclusion on Wikipedia as a notable topic), it makes sense to me if the article is renamed and reworked to include a broader range of sources. Haleth (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just overlooked (best not to draw attention to such things, really). The article was however already reliably sourced a year ago, though page numbers would have been nice... I've no objection to the renaming, as you know, but there is no reason why Miriel could not be included under the current title. I'd equally not object to merging the article as it's barely justifiable as it stands, though that might change if something substantial can be said about the pair of them.
There are not many sources for either of them (Finwë + Tolkien ~198, Finwë + Miriel ~77, Mir iel + Tolkien ~177, but most of these are minor mentions).
The Amelia A. Rutledge article you mention "'Justice is not Healing': J. R. R. Tolkien's Pauline Constructs in 'Finwë and Míriel'" is easily the most substantial of the sources so far, and it'd certainly be worth looking out the full text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It mainly comes down to the nature of the sourcing, and there are more search results in Google Books. For example, I neglected to mention that the Drout-edited encyclopedia actually lists both Finwe and Miriel together as an entry. There's also the in-universe so-called Statute of Finwë and Míriel which Tolkien wrote as part of his Laws and Customs Among the Eldar essay, which have been discussed in some of the scholarly sources. Miriel is already included and discussed under this article for years now, even going back to the last AfD back in 2011 which ended in no consensus, and this particular section takes up almost half of the article prose. Creating an article about Miriel does not make sense since she is as much of a background character as Finwe, and they are often discussed together in many of the reliable sources. Renaming the article, in my view, means we can freely apply sourcing for both topics as part of one article without any undue issues; it doesn't make sense for an article specifically about Finwe to have more then 50% of the content discussing Miriel and vice versa. Haleth (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's right - and it doesn't reflect the article as it is now - then the choice is to merge or to rename. The Matthew Dickerson entry in Drout is half a page, but not at all bad; Dickerson oddly puts Flieger's Splintered Light in his 'Further reading' section without explanation (must be a Wikipedian), and I see that Flieger mentions Finwe twice – each time briefly but (as usual for her) usefully. Perhaps we can find a way to making this article notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I take the view of renaming this article and expanding the prose. At least two to three in depth sources are good enough for me. I don't see a point merging it to Noldor, or Feanor, when I can already see a scope for expansion. Haleth (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's develop the article ("expand" is far too much like "inflate", to my ear) and see where it takes us. Perhaps in a few days' time it will be obvious to everyone why the renaming will be a good thing. Actually finding and using sources is way more persuasive than argumentation, I find. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Míriel is tightly bound to the story of Finwë and his sons, with all the disastrous consequences of their decisions. She has a full place in the article, reliably sourced, and should be named in the article's title. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Finwë and Míriel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh that was quick! Thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • For the record, I have tweaked the references a bit (mainly to include links where the sources can be read online).
  • No worries.
  • I would suggest merging the two Fontenot references since they are two parts of a whole. Personally, I would use Template:Multiref2 for this.
  • Done. It's ingenious, but does result in a slight loss of information (is part 1 or part 2 applicable), in return for some measure of tidiness.

Lead

[edit]
  • The infobox says that "Curufinwë" is Finwë's true name, rather than Fëanor's.
  • Fixed.
  • King of the Noldor – I would write "Noldor Elves" for clarity.
  • Done.
  • Finwë is the first King of the Noldor to lead his people on the journey from Middle-earth to Valinor – I would write "[...], who leads" (including the comma) to avoid readers misinterpreting this as "the first of many".
  • Fixed.
  • uniquely among immortal Elves – this might be a good place to include a link to Elves in Middle-earth. Implemented while I did the review.
  • Done.
  • Fixed.
  • Tolkien called Míriel's decision to die disastrous – for someone reading this for the first time, "decision to die" kind of comes out of nowhere (and sounds a bit like a euphemism for suicide). I'm not sure what the best thing to do would be.
  • linking it to the Biblical Fall of man – is "linking" the right word here (and not, say, "likening")?
  • Reworded.
  • Curufinwë, means "Skill-Finwë" – this should probably mention that it means this in one of Tolkien's constructed languages.
  • Done.

History

[edit]
  • I would call this "Fictional history", "Narrative", or something similar. Probably "Fictional history" for consistency with e.g. Noldor, Fëanor, and Silmarils.
  • Done.
  • awoke at Cuivienen – missing diacritics, and the link leads nowhere useful (Cuivienen and Cuiviénen redirect to different places, for some reason). I would also probably gloss this.
  • Fixed those, and glossed.
  • live with them in Valinor – I would gloss.
  • Done.
  • The Vanyar, alone of the Eldar, had immediately gone to Valinor when summoned, and never left. – I would probably just say "Elves" rather than "Eldar", but this seems out of chronology? Finwë's marriage to Indis long precedes the Flight of the Noldor.
    • Elves it is. The Vanyar went to Valinor (green arrow on map, pointing left) long before the Flight of the Noldor (red arrows, pointing right).
      • Indeed. My point is that it's a bit odd to bring up the Vanyar being unique in never leaving Valinor when the Noldor had at this point not done so either. Or am I reading the sentence incorrectly? TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed. The 'and never left' is of course a forward reference, but given that this is a gloss on their character, it makes sense. If you don't like it, let's leave them unglossed.
  • Fëanor comes to resent Finwë's other children, his half-brothers – either "other children, his half-siblings" or "other sons, his half-brothers".
  • Sons it is.
  • Done.
  • exiled from Tirion – gloss.
  • Done.
  • and the First Kinslaying – I would both link and gloss.
  • Done.
  • This directly leads to the Flight of the Noldor, which culminates in the disastrous rebellion of the Noldor against the Valar and the First Kinslaying. – I don't know that I would say that it culminates in this and the cited source doesn't either.
  • Meriel – typo.
  • Fixed.
  • Done.
  • What is the Fontenot source meant to verify?
  • Removed.

Analysis

[edit]
  • Done.
  • The Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger writes [...] some of them. – this seems to mainly reiterate the events of the "In Middle-earth" subsection?
  • Cut down.
  • The Elves, in fact, make choices according to their ancestry, creating the first Sundering of the Elves. – this is something of a non sequitur.
  • See next.
  • Removed.
  • his typical mixture of background philosophy and story telling – I'm not sure I understand this part.
  • Removed.
  • His fire then drives [...] across the sea in Beleriand. – this sentence is so long as to impede readability. I would also be inclined to attribute the etymological analysis to Flieger WP:INTEXT. This might be a good place to use a diagram/table, which I see you've included in the Fëanor article.
  • Split, and attributed. And, seeing as I have one here in the workshop, ...
  • formulas for "woman" included "weaver" and "embroideress" – "formulas"?
  • Edited.
  • Tolkien indeed wrote – "indeed" is a MOS:Word to watch. In this case, I think it falls on the wrong side of Wikipedia appearing to endorse Dickerson's analysis rather than just reporting it.
  • Removed.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I would probably link Bible.
  • Done.
  • New comment: Fontenot writes a fair amount about Míriel. At least some of it should be included. I found the stuff about the different stages in the development of the character pretty interesting, for example. TompaDompa (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a paragraph.
      • Fantastic. This source is quite a goldmine, really. There's more to include such as Fontenot's discussion of the varying length of time between Fëanor's birth and Míriel's death in different drafts and the implications thereof, if you want to, but I won't insist upon it for the purposes of WP:GA (though I would for WP:FA). TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    See my comments above.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    See my comments above.
  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:
    All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.
    C. It contains no original research:
    See my comments above.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    I think some of Fontenot's analysis of Míriel should be included in the "Analysis" section.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    See my comments above.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No obvious neutrality issues. Opinions are clearly distinguished from facts and attributed as appropriate.
  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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All media use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping TompaDompa: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! We are done here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Finwë_and_Míriel&oldid=1212515089"