Talk:The Scouring of the Shire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jack Upland (talk · contribs) 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am planning to review this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland: Many thanks. It may help if you know that I am accustomed to working through GANs with reviewers, incorporating their comments promptly so as to improve the article, so I would be grateful if you would avoid rushing to judgement. I am aware that you are relatively skeptical about Middle-earth articles. I am somewhat doubtful that you will be capable of reviewing this article neutrally, given your earlier involvement with it (and with me on this and other matters), which one might have thought could have prevented you from taking on the role of GA reviewer in this case. But, since you have taken this on, I assume in good faith, I am very willing to work with you to bring the article to GA quality. I am capable of responding promptly to review comments and have both the time and the materials at hand to make even substantial changes within the timeframe of a GAN. I look forward to a constructive collaboration. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Given your comments, I withdraw as reviewer. I believe I am eligible under the rules, because I have not made significant edits to the article, but there is no point continuing if there is an apprehension of bias. Below are the notes I have made so far. They are not what I would have put forward as a review.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you, and I'm sorry to have put you to the trouble of reviewing the article. I'm grateful for all the comments, which will certainly lead to the article's improvement, and will action them now. I'm sure the next reviewer will appreciate the input, as I do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.

• Many of the piped links are inappropriate. Brandywine Bridge and Frogmorton link to Shire (Middle-earth). Tookland and Bag End link to Shire (Middle-earth)#Geography. Shiriffs links to Shire (Middle-earth)#Government. Thain links to Shire (Middle-earth)#Rulers and their functions which doesn’t exist. As the article has already linked to the Shire twice, this plethora of links to the same page is unnecessary. Black breath links to Nazgul#Appearance and characteristics which is irrelevant in this context. Penultimate leads to a linguistics term. Aftermath of World War II (which is linked to twice) only has brief mention of Britain. Laws of nature goes to Scientific laws, which is not very appropriate in the context. The link to Benito Mussolini's death seems to be an Easter egg. Overall, there a lot of overlinking. Sarehole Mill is linked to twice.

Removed overlinks - many of these were once separate articles. Laws of nature seems to be correctly linked, as is Mussolini's death; it's plain enough from the quoted phrase in the context that "end" means "his death" here. Unlinked "penultimate". Moved "Black Breath" link to a footnote, it was an allusion by the critic.

• The "Chapter summary" is heavy with proper nouns, none of which (apart from Saruman) are explained, except by links.

Glossed them.

• Lotho is mentioned four times throughout the article, but it is never explained who he is.

Done.

• It is assumed that readers know that Paladin is Pippin's father.

Good point. Glossed.

• It is unnecessary to mention minor places like Frogmorton, and it seems a bit "in the universe".

Good point. Removed.

• The "Chapter summary" doesn't explain the place of the chapter in the overall plot. The context of events isn't described. There is a lot of assumed knowledge, as mentioned above.

A very good point. Added a lot of glosses. Created a new 'Context' section.

• The Mirror of Galadriel is mentioned later, but the significance of this is unexplained.

Added a gloss.

• Sandyman the Miller is also mentioned later, with an accompanying photo, but he isn't mentioned in the "Chapter summary", and it's not clear who he is.

Mentioned in the summary section.

• There isn't enough plot to allow an uninitiated reader to understand the themes of satire and taking "responsibility for oneself".

Added a bit more, but these are subtle emergent qualities not readily captured in a summary.

• Some of the prose is hard to understand: for example, "Tolkien denied that the chapter was an allegory of the state of Britain during the aftermath of World War II, meaning that its interpretation was not rigidly constrained" (my emphasis).

Removed the phrase.

• It is unclear what the section, "A novelistic chapter", is about.

Its novel-like quality. I've moved the Jane Chance paragraph from the section as it wasn't strongly connected to the theme.

• The paragraph about the radio play seems to meander along without a point.

Good point. Cut it down to focus on what is distinctive about it.

• The article juxtaposes contradictory information. The chapter was planned from the beginning, but also it is suggested that Tolkien was inspired by later events.

The idea of a scouring was planned, the details came later. Added a gloss to say this.

• [The article juxtaposes contradictory information.] There is no magic in the chapter, except for Saruman's death, Merry's horn, and Merry and Pippin's height.

The chapter neither asserts there is a lot of magic nor that there is none. It cites Plank who states that Saruman once worked magic but in the chapter works without sorcery; and it quotes Shippey, who explains that Merry's horn is a magic one. The height is mentioned in a footnote; it's not part of any magic events in the chapter.

• Direct quotations are overused.

There is only one substantial quotation: it is of three sentences from Tolkien's Foreword, and it gives his view of the origins of the chapter, something of clear encyclopedic interest. Other than that, quotations are of short distinctive phrases to give readers the tone of the comments made by the cited and attributed scholars and critics. We could replace these with paraphrases, though when for instance Plank is said to call the chapter "a realistic parable of reality" there are not many other ways this could be said, and it is helpful to readers to see Plank's actual words here. As for overuse, that quotation is 5 words out of a 96 word paragraph.

• The article tends to go off on tangents. The reference to Odysseus is overdone.

This is covered by my response below about the Odysseus image.

• There is more information about Merry's horn here than in the actual chapter.

This is covered by my response below about the horn image.

• Who is Eorl?

Added a gloss.

• The reference to George Orwell is unexplained.

Added a description.

• George RR Martin's comment doesn't belong under "Adaptations".

You're right. Moved.

Lead

• The lead does not adequately summarise the article. Saying that the Shire has been "despoiled" doesn't really explain what has happened.

Reworked and extended.

• Tolkien's comment about allegory is not featured in the article.

Added and cited.

• The lead says, "The chapter has been left out of all film adaptations of the novel, except as a brief flash-forward when Frodo looks into the Mirror of Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy." However, the "Adaptations" section mentions Saruman's death as a point of similarity. The article doesn't discuss The Return of the King (1980 film). In any case, why mention film adaptations only?

Added a discussion of illustration. Saruman's death is relocated from the Shire to Isengard, so it's at best a doubtful case, probably not really for the lead. The 1980 film doesn't feature the Shire.

• "Paradoxically" in the lead is not a good word choice. It is not clear what the paradox is.

Removed.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

• I can't see any issues with secondary sources. I can't see any OR except the diagram (see below).

Noted.

• The references to The Lord of the Rings are not entirely accurate. Tolkien's comments in the "Foreword to the Second Edition" are not accurately represented.

Quoted in full, and cited.

• Calling Saruman an "ex-wizard" is misleading. He still has the power to curse the ground where he falls. In any case, he is not a mortal man. The article calls him "diminished and shrivelled", while the book calls him "well-fed and well-pleased".

Fixed.

• It is wrong to say, "The hobbits learn that the "Chief" is not Lotho Sackville-Baggins as they expected, but Sharkey". Lotho was the Chief, but Saruman has taken over. I don't think Saruman is ever called the "Chief".

Fixed.

• He doesn't live in Bag End - how could he? No one is living in the hole when they arrive.

Fixed.

• Clearly they do not "allow the pair to leave the Shire unharmed", but this is case of bad writing, rather than inaccuracy.

Fixed.

It is broad in its coverage.

• No problems here.

Noted.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

• The article refers to Tolkien's comment that the chapter wasn't inspired by contemporary events, but doesn't provide a quotation or a reference.

See next item.

• Scholars who contradict Tolkien are cited, but we never hear what he said.

Added a quote from Tolkien's statement in the Foreword.

• The article gives undue weight to criticism of Clement Attlee. There is a photo of Attlee and also a photo of a wagon which refers to Shippey's comment about Attlee, which focuses attention on Attlee, rather than Hitler, Mussolini etc.

Used a Nazi tyranny photo instead of the Attlee image.

• The description of Attlee's Britain as "drab, bleak and bureaucratic place" comes from Hal Colebatch, who was ultra-rightwing. Many people admire Attlee.

Including me, actually, but that doesn't invalidate Colebatch's opinion, and the article cites him via other critics.

It is stable.

• The article has been completely transformed since January, but there have been no edit wars.

Noted.

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

• Most of the images aren't appropriate. The diagram appears to be OR.

It is cited and directly summarizes the cited source.

• The illustration of Odysseus is based on a tangent from a brief mention in a source.

The source names Odysseus's scouring of his home in Ithaca as an antecedent for the chapter, and this is accordingly described, cited, and illustrated in the article.

• The photo of Sarehole Mill would be relevant, except it's not explained in the article.

Good point. Actually it was linked and cited in the quotation about "The country in which I lived in childhood" but I've made it more apparent now to assist the reader.

• The picture of Attlee gives undue weight to the criticism of him.

Replaced the image.

• The photo of the wagon is totally inappropriate. It is supposed to illustrate the export of tobacco from the Shire, but in fact shows a wagon carrying cotton in Queensland, Australia, in 1922. The cargo is identifiable as cotton, and the Australian setting can been seen by the gum trees etc. The men are clearly not medieval.

Replaced it with a tobacco-wagon, free of gum-trees. Of course the people on it are human, not hobbits. To readers unused to non-motor transport, the image should be helpful in indicating clearly what sort of vehicle is being discussed, and that the quantities being exported were clearly way in excess of what Saruman could possibly have used himself, as in the cited text.

• The photo of the horn shows a hunting horn made of horn. Merry's horn was made of silver and is only briefly mentioned in the chapter.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is an old-style hunting horn, bound with silver. The relevant fact is that the critic discusses it at length, so Tolkien's brief mention is tangential: but in fact, Tolkien mentions horns in multiple places, and Shippey discusses their (similar) connotations together.

Summary

Since the reviewer has recused, I am completing this as preparation for a future review, to improve the article as far as possible using the comments made to date, and to assist the future reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

If I may

Chiswick Chap, I will be happy to take over. I am pretty neutral in this area: my thinking on fictional worlds and such is that they are worth talking about if academics talk about them, to put it briefly. Tolkien's work, long seen as "just" fantasy, is now also an academic discipline, as the work of Tom Shippey testifies (I think I met him once or twice, disclaimer). Anyway, the previous reviewer left a lot of good comments, and I am looking them over. In the meantime, allow me to drop a few notes here, and more as I read through the article. One more thing: I may not be the fastest reviewer ever, and I may have to do it piecemeal; if you find a reviewer that can devote a big chunk of time and get this done more speedily, go for it. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. I'll look forward to your review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes

• I am not enamored with the term "novelistic"; I know where it comes from (the Birns article), but I'd prefer to see it in quotation marks maybe in that section and explained/linked (maybe to Wiktionary), because it is not immediately obvious to most readers. Also, I think in the context of all the scholarship it's not big enough to be in the lead: it's just one critic, right? (Who in turn synthesizes others, as your notes indicate--but it's still just him, AFAICT.) It also seems like that section is kind of a gathering of various opinions; the last two sentences of that first paragraph are about Plank, and that's a different reading, and the next two paragraphs are an unrelated comparison and an unrelated appreciation. All of those are valid, but they are not about "novelistic". I would be fine be a renaming of that section to something like "'Novelistic' and other interpretations and appreciations". Or something much less clunky than what I just wrote. Or the last two should be moved to a separate little section at the end of that part.

Removed "novelistic" from the lead; added Wiktionary link; split the section as suggested.

• In "Environmentalism", I'd like to see some dates, incorporated into "Critics have observed". The first one is from the 70s? That's exciting. Dickerson and Evans have a couple of hits for the scouring--I know, this is not an FA review, but it would be great to be able to say, verifiably, "critics since the 1970s have..." And certainly that book can give you one more quick sentence or two for that section.

Added.

• "Wish-fulfillment"--to me that seems like an element of the allegorizing reading of the chapter, also because it's sourced to the one scholar. What would this look like if you placed it before the Nitzsche paragraph? I'm also wondering, but this is REALLY picky, about the note for "Black Breath"--it's your editorial commentary, even though I realize you are absolutely correct. This is one of the grey areas in Wikipedia (I've been there) where editorial judgment overlaps with editorial commentary, and I have no answer (maybe it's not a question for you).

I'm not sure how that move would work, as the paragraph isn't either for or against the political interpretation.

On the footnote, we can remove it, leave it, or replace it with a wikilink, as you like. I think it's probably best as it is really.

If that kind of footnote is OK in GAs and FAs (you know this better than I do), then it's fine.

• You say, in that caption, "Tolkien related the chapter to his childhood experiences..."--but isn't it Plank who draws that inference? Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Plank's remark is based very closely on Tolkien's statement in the Foreword that's quoted near the end of 'Origins'.

If that is the case, can you make that link explicit in the text? Because the text has "Plank suggested that the chapter was "a realistic parable of reality". Tolkien explained that in his childhood..." but the following quote doesn't connect the memory to the chapter. I need to say Tolkien relate the memory to the chapter, otherwise it's OR.

Done, adding one sentence to the quote, and moving the 'parable' sentence after the quote.

In "Other opinions", the opening "Tolkien critics including" is a bit clunky: I doubt there's many other critics who draw this somewhat esoteric inference. If my hunch is correct, just cut "including". But the rest of the sentence needs polishing too: who Ayesha is probably escapes many readers, and it could do with a small, appositive note. And the comma after "death" is redundant/awkward/incorrect, depending on where one stands in the grammar of punctuation.

Done both.

• Besides these little points, I have no serious objections, though I will read over the previous reviewers' notes in full before I can say yes. Thank you for some excellent work. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've still to write the 'Context' section quite rightly suggested by the first reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, well done. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)