Talk:Impression of depth in The Lord of the Rings/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I've heard of this concept in passing but never knew it had so much background, this should be an interesting read! My process for reviewing is pretty simple, I'll read through the article once and then read through again but give comments on each section, usually based on prose and continuity After that I'll give some general thoughts and do a quick image and source review. You should expect comments in the next 24 hours. (48 at the most) - Aza24 (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll look forward to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, I had a feeling that it would take me a second to get to this review, hence the "48 hours at most", but irl issues made my estimate wayyy under – sorry about that Chiswick Chap. Anyways, comments/suggestions below:

Thank you very much for the careful and timely review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Effect

• Maybe change to "...the 14th century medieval Chivalric romance Sir Gawain and the Green Knight..." – after all the middle ages was an enormous period. (Adding that it's English might be good too but then it could get a little cramped so I'll leave that up to you)

Added.

• The line "...his opinion the ability to withstand the severe test of being a set text for students..." seems like rather odd phrasing. Are you saying that the impression of depth of this work gives it a good reason to be studied by students? Tweaking the sentence might be worthwhile here.

Split, and reworded. He was implying (but this would be OR, an in-Other-words Reading) that a less deep text would have been seen through as worthless if given the attention of a whole class of students.

• Lol what is a "scholar of english"? English history, English language or did you mean to simply recognize them as being an english scholar?

Literature.

• Maybe link "elves" and "men" to their middle earth WP pages in the Ferdynus quote? (And perhaps even "fellowship")

Done all three.

Antecedents

• While I recognize that Shakespeare being the author of Macbeth goes without saying for those familiar with the work, for consistency I would add "William Shakespeare's Macbeth." (Or "Shakespeare's Macbeth" – but the former would be ideal since it would match the use of Thomas Malory and Geoffrey Chaucer's full names)

Well we've said "Virgil" so I think we can say "Shakespeare". (You can have "Publius Vergilius Maro" if you like... :-} )

Factors

Vast backcloths

• "encompassed The Silmarillion and much of the multi-volume legendarium edited by Tolkien's son, Christopher might be more appropriate."

Done.

Casual mentions

• Perhaps an adjective before "Silmarils"? "mentions of mystical/powerful/unexplained objects like the Silmarils, by..." or whatever you think might be appropriate – just a thought.

Added.

• What does "Elven-smith" mean? Is there a link to "smith" that could help?

A smith who's an Elf.

• It doesn't look like you link Frodo anywhere before the mention after Shelob so you could link him here.

Linked.

• Well if you're going to link protagonist, linking Antagonist would make sense. Perhaps even link "story" – although that seems like more of a stretch.

Linked.

• The table is a really nice touch!

Thank you.

Multiple accounts, apparent contradictions

• Maybe link "oral" to Oral tradition?

Linked.

• This paragraph has two instances where a primary source and a secondary are used for a sentence, but they're each in a different order. (11 T10 vs T13 6)

Now that is a truly FAC level of subtlety. I suppose most articles don't use multiple reflists so the matter doesn't arise! Done.

Varying styles

• This section looks good

Thank you!

Reception

• This section looks good as well

Noted.

Lead

After reading the article and coming back to the lead:

• The ref after "deep roots in the past" can probably be removed as the same quote is sourced in the "Effect" section.

Moved.

• Since J.K. Rowling is a particularly notable author, I think her inclusion in the lead as one of the authors who have to some extent followed the factors/impression of death would be worthwhile.

Done.

• I'm a little hesitant about LOTR not being linked anywhere in the lead. While I recognize that it's generally discouraged to link the bolded term, it might make sense here. Or the sentence could be reconstructed to "The impression of depth in The Lord of the Rings, in the high fantasy novel The Lord of the Rings is an aesthetic effect deliberately sought by its author, J. R. R. Tolkien." Let me know what you think.

Yes. I've linked it a little further on in the lead to avoid sounding too much like a duck in the first sentence.

General

Overall this article is in great shape and my comments were definitely picky throughout, on very minor things. The article was super interesting to read as well so I have no doubt that once my comments are implemented or addressed that I will pass it.

Thank you.

• I wonder if the "Antecedents" section might be worthy of a renaming? It seems maybe something like "Background", "Background of effect", "History of effect" or even "Earlier uses" might be more appropriate. Aza24 (talk) 23:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. I was looking for a word that implied not only history and background but earlier usages that actually led JRRT to do what he did. I think "Antecedents" was influenced in my mind by "Precedents", perhaps the better word as it carries the sense of "an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances". Let's use that.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

GAN - Pass

Chiswick Chap, I went through the images and looked at the sources/ref style and could not find any errors. The changes have all either been implemented, addressed or considered and everything looks great now – the renaming to "Precedents" is especially helpful. Promoting now, congratulations! Aza24 (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)