Talk:Tolkien and antiquarianism/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Heavy Grasshopper (talk · contribs) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. I'll be reviewing the article. This is my first review, but I'll try to complete it fairly promptly this week and let you know what changes, if any, are required, in the next couple of days. Comments to follow in the table.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heavy Grasshopper, many thanks for taking this on. If you're unsure of the GAN process at any point, feel free to ask me or the folks over on the GAN discussion page. If any comments are at all long (i.e. more than 'OK') then it generally works best to list them outside (before) the table, as it gets tricky trying to edit a lot of discussion threads inside the table structure. The key to a review is to make a list of comments to which I'll reply; I'm used to working through even quite serious comments (nearly anything can be fixed with a bit of effort). In this case I created the article, so I know the sources are solid. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chiswick Chap . I hope you won't find the comments too tiresome in that I did put them into the table. I felt that they were all quite minor, with the possible exception of my request for more context on Tolkien himself. I know his main biographical article is linked on the context section, but I wonder if a few sentences in the context section with a quote or two from scholars) on Tolkien himself, his life as it relates to his interest in antiquarianism, and any likely motivation for using it in his works, would be good. I think knowing more about these things would help the general reader with understanding the context of his use of antiquarian elements in his works.

I do think that would all fall under the scope of this article and better fulfil criterion 3a.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response and edits. Happy to pass this now.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~Consider replacing ‘Verbal elements’ subheading with ‘Written elements’. To me, verbal suggests spoken.~~ All fine here, good prose and I didn’t see any errors reading through. : Scripts are however both graphic and "written"... best we stay as we are.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fine.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Verifiable information, well sourced.
	2b. 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).	~~I wonder if we could use a source in addition to Tolkien himself in the Chronologies section. Other than that, very well sourced, inline citations provided throughout.~~ There isn't anything obvious to use; other sources can do no more than point at the Appendices, after all.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Looking at the sources available to me, I do not detect any OR. Scholars are cited properly in appropriate context.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I did not detect any copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Generally everything is well addressed in depth. I wonder if more about the man himself might be helpful. There are insightful snippets, such as his fascination with language even as a child, but I think more would be beneficial and would not constitute unnecessary detail. OK, added some more on him.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I found the Hobbits invoking Elbereth slightly lengthy, but that's a matter of taste. Some context about the popularity of his works makes sense, to me it seemed less important to know the results of several polls re LOTR, or the popularity of the movies. As mentioned, perhaps some context regarding Tolkien’s life and his penchant to be a bit backwards-looking (or whatever reliable sources say) would be more focused? Perhaps in addition, rather than instead of, the existing context section. The Elbereth example can't readily be shortened, and it does make its point clearly. On the context about Tolkien, that's the item above already.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Review the phrase at the end of the lead: ‘All of them help to make the secondary world of Middle-earth real and solid, encouraging suspension of disbelief.’ To me this sounds a bit like Wikipedia saying Middle-earth is a well-constructed fantasy world. Just make it clear that we’re still going on the opinions of the aforementioned scholars. Fair enough, the intention is just to describe their purpose, not whether they succeed. Edited.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Vast majority of edits by nominator. No sign of edit-warring or disputes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use cases seem reasonable, copyrighted images are used in poor resolution. Acceptable per WP:NFCI.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Relevant and suitably described.
	7. Overall assessment.