Talk:The Last Ringbearer/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

LiveJournal is a generally unreliable source for reasons of being WP:SELFPUBLISHED. It can only be used as a reliable source if the person posting there is a subject-matter expert (which I don't think applies to Markov) or WP:ABOUTSELF, which would basically only include translation details.

Removed the non-ABOUTSELF uses of the ref.

The article should probably mention the context of Russian reinterpretations of Tolkien's works such as The Black Book of Arda [ru].[1][2]

Added.

Lead

Russian biologist Kirill Eskov – the sources mainly gloss Eskov as a paleontologist.

Done, both appellations are fine. I note however that he has described a species of living spider.

It has been translated into English by Yisroel Markov, but has not been printed for fear of copyright action by the Tolkien Estate. – the second clause only applies to the translation, right?

Tweaked.

Critics have stated that the book [...] certainly provides an alternate take on the story. – this phrasing seems to imply something that is left unstated. It oozes subtext, so to speak.
- I've no idea what subtext that would be; for me it's a plain statement of fact.
  - "It's certainly different" is often a polite way of saying that something is bad. A euphemism, basically. I understand that it wasn't meant that way, but it will read that way to many people. TompaDompa (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe I just don't understand the point that this is meant to convey. If it's just critics agreeing with the author that it's an alternate version of the story, that seems rather banal. If it's that it is so different as to be interesting/novel/original, that could be made clearer. TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the article is in the Tolkien fold and as such is stated to be in British English; I imagine that this thread is a Brit/Yank language issue, and while we'd be fully entitled to keep it in pure Brit-speak, I've removed the "certainly" as not needed in this instance.

New comment: I think the added Russian context (in the "Premise" and "Reception" sectoins) warrants a mention in the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added.

Premise

a "history written by the victors" – I would link to Philosophy of history#Philosophy of neutrality, which History is written by the victors redirects to.

Done.

Eskov's version of the story describes Mordor as a peaceful constitutional monarchy on the verge of an industrial revolution – not really in the cited source.

Replaced.

whose attitude has been described by Saruman – "has been" should be "is".

Done.

and the racist Elves – racism isn't really a characteristic of the Elves discussed by the source.

Removed the term.

Plot

to eliminate the "educated" classes – it might be appropriate to link to Eliticide here.

Done.

Two Orc soldiers ("Orc" being a racial slur used by the West) – from what I can gather, the Orcs in this version are humans. That should be made explicit.

Added.

("Orc" being a racial slur used by the West) – rather an WP:EASTEREGG, I think. Linking to Orc#Debated racism might be more appropriate than linking to Tolkien and race, but I don't know that this needs to be linked at all.

Removed.

Haladdin is chosen as he is a rare individual in whom there is absolutely no magic, and has a tendency to behave irrationally, for example joining the Mordorian army as a medic to impress his girlfriend and almost dying as a result, instead of putting his talents to better use at home in the university. – I'm guessing this has benefits in making him unpredictable to the Elves? It should be clarified.

That's a question for the author, not us.

Tangorn manages to arrange a meeting with the Elves in Umbar, while evading Gondor's efforts to eliminate him. He is killed – this produces something of a whiplash effect, going immediately from evading efforts to eliminate him to being killed.

Tweaked with a little extra detail from the Byzantine plot.

He is killed, which convinces the Elves to pass his message on to Eloar's mother – I do not at all understand how one leads to the other.

I hope I've clarified this with the added detail.

a Mordorian researcher developing flight-based weapons (under the secret patronage of Aragorn) – I'm confused about allegiances.

Yeah, everybody's acting secretly on some side or other.

Publication

It seems a bit odd that this section discusses the English-language translation in a fair amount of detail, and provides a list of other translations, but doesn't say anything at all about the original Russian-language version.

Added.

Several English-language publishing houses have considered undertaking a translation, but each has abandoned its plans due to the potential of litigation from the Tolkien Estate, which has a history of strictly objecting to any derivative works, especially in English. – this isn't (wholly) verified by either of the cited sources, and Markov wouldn't be a reliable source for this either way.

Cut down; Miller does say "but fear of the vigilant and litigious Tolkien estate has heretofore prevented its publication in English." which certainly covers the key point.

In 2010, Yisroel Markov translated the book into English, with a second edition released in 2011 fixing typos and revising the prose as well as providing ebook formatted versions – this is an appropriate use of an WP:ABOUTSELF citation to Markov, and to my eye the only one.

Noted.

The list of translations is unsourced, which I suppose is not a problem in itself since each translation is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for itself, but it makes me wonder whether a list of translations exists external to Wikipedia which would give us an indication as to the completeness of our list of translations.

Agree, a bibliographic list of sources doesn't need further sourcing. I've checked with WorldCat.

Reception

"Popular" doesn't seem the right word for the subheading here. Perhaps "Critical"?

Done.

the overly simplistic morality of Tolkien's masterpiece – since this is part of a quote, the link to Christianity in Middle-earth is inappropriate per MOS:LINKQUOTE as it may not have been what Miller had in mind.

Removed.

I would gloss the people quoted in the "Academic" subsection.

Done.

David Ashford describes the novel as a "splendid counter-factual fantasy", calling it the "most entertaining" and best-known retelling of its kind, despite Tolkien's direct statement rejecting any link between Orcs and Russia: "To ask if the Orcs 'are' Communists is to me as sensible as asking if Communists are Orcs." – this reads as a non sequitur. The necessary context that is missing here is what "of its kind" means.

Glossed.

Robert Stuart, discussing the question of Tolkien and race, comments that Eskov's book is "effective in critiquing the anti-modern dimension of Tolkien's ideological viewpoint", but concludes that one cannot equate Orcs to any group of humans. – I think this is too much of a stretch. Stuart says that the book is "purportedly a fine 'Orcs'-eye' view of Middle-Earth, and is evidently particularly effective [...]". In other words, Stuart hasn't read the book.

I wonder. Tweaked.

I'm missing coverage of the real-world geopolitical angle as it relates to Russia / the USSR. This is discussed by Miller, among others.[3]

Added a bit from that source. Already mentioned Miller as saying that there are lumps of undigested Russian politics in there.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
See my comments above.

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—summarizing what a critic such as Miller says about a work inevitably bears a fairly close resemblance to their original review, and I think this (just barely) falls on the right side.
I'm glad we agree on that. There is a huge difference between using someone's words and closely following their argument in Wikipedia's voice (plagiarism), and documenting the logic of an attributed and cited critic's argument and their opinion in a way that gives the reader an insight into the critic's position. In the latter case, it is actually required that the text maps faithfully on to the critic's flow of argument.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
See my comments above.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
There are no obvious neutrality issues.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:
The fair use rationale for the book cover seems valid to me, and the only other image is a freely licensed one.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that takes care of all the issues that needed to be addressed. The article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Well done! TompaDompa (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2023 (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.