This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Untitled
This article uses British english dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
To Stub or Not to Stub?
Is this really a stub page if this is all the info we have on it?? -- Alcarillo 16:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
You could add something about it probably being created by Morgoth in the First Age before anyone was around to name it but it would only be speculation. However, it would seem probable that after the fall of Morgoth (at Utumno and at Thangorodrim) some of the creatures he created fled and hid in various places, like outside Moria. I refrain from adding this in until interest can be guaged or in case I am incorrect.
Hydraton31 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Also needs an infobox (character) and image, at least. SkierRMH 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll fix up the article. LOTRrules (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've sorted out most of the article and added an infobox. LOTRrules (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added extra information to the article. I think it's past the "stub" stage since I've put in a lot of information. LOTRrules (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
GAC fail
I'm a huge fan of LotR, so it pains me to quick fail the GA nomination so quickly. The article simply isn't ready yet. There are numerous typos ("retrived", "referances", "colonsiation"), formatting issues (refs go after punctuation or at the end of fact or figure, all of the sources/footnotes are not formatted properly per WP:CITE), and the writing is clearly sub par. I'm sure that this article can be improved in time, but it typically takes more than one day's work to greatly improve an article for GA status. :) Some points to consider, aside from what has already been said:
This article does not clearly state what makes this creature notable. "...mysterious and horrific" seems unnecessarily melodramatic, but what role does it play in FotR? In short, why does it warrant this article in the first place?
More reliable sources are needed. A lot of what is used are personal websites and/or fansites which do not satisfy WP:V. Scholarly resources, such as what can be typically found at an academic library, would be ideal.
Information should be greatly expanded. Is it known where Tolkien got his inspiration for this creature, for example? Tolkien was a scholar and a nerd, so most of everything he wrote was inspired by something; I find it hard to believe that this character was completely imagined by him. The "Kraken" identification is interesting and could definitely be expanded.
Once more information has been added, a thorough copy-edit is needed by someone unfamiliar with the article. Sentences such as "The origins of the creature is unclear and speculated to have been a creation of Morgoth during the First Age[4], or a Maia like the Balrogs[4]" are very confusing and grammatically sloppy.
"In other media" seems trivial, but if there is reason to keep it, that and the above section should be changed to prose and not bullet lists. Again, more information is needed. Perhaps combine relevant info into a "Depictions" section?
Good luck on improving this article! María(habla conmigo) 13:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Spelling corrected.LOTRrules (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
References go after punctuation corrected. LOTRrules (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The roll and significance of creature and what makes it notable corrected. LOTRrules (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"In other media" section merged with other sections into "Portrayel in adaptations". Thanks to user:Uthanc, LOTRrules (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Cite web templates used in references corrected. LOTRrules (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Suitable referances included. All the infomation we can possibly obtain on the character has been dealt with and expanded as fully as possible. LOTRrules (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Diambiguation(s) corrected. LOTRrules (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
"British" English corrected since Tolkien was English. No American English used. LOTRrules (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Article
As of 28 March 2008 the article looks like thisLOTRrules (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Saw this on the GAC, small note: When viewed with Internet Explorer, the length of the text for the live action pic is causing a small white space to appear between the title "references" and the actual references. Also what is the relation with the "See Also" section? I understand the artist guy, but why the list of Dwarves and "The Ring"? Also maybe consider moving Mr John Howe's name into it. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The Ring of Power is there just as another topic for a fan to look since the Watcher may have been affected by it when it attacked the Company of the ring. But the removal of dwarvs I guess that was acceptable. LOTRrules (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I'm using Internet Explorer too and I can't see the problem with the "refs" bit - can you explain it further? LOTRrules (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the text bit is it any better? LOTRrules (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Apparently it goes like that when I look at it on my girlfriend's computer, I'll have a look at it tonight, then I'll check what resolution she's on and report back. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
On GF's comp now, looks much better. Well done, hang in there ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
How is the second review going so far? LOTRrules (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
GA nom fails
I, too, regrettably must fail this article for GA listing. Unfortunately for many of the same reasons the earlier reviewer cited.
It requires a good, thorough copy edit. The first time I looked at the article I couldn't help but note "it's" in the Lead when possessive is required. Grammar must be checked carefully, especially subject-verb agreement and punctuation. There are a number of opportunities where clarity and readability can be improved just by combining sentences (there are a number of short, choppy passages) and ensuring antecedents are obvious (for example: (a) replacing "It is said" with the actual "It", FOTR in this case; (b) Concept and creation has the phrase "The sequence", but to what "sequence" is the reference?). Very quickly, I took the Literature section in the version I reviewed and did a fast copy edit. The other sections should be given a similar treatment.
The Speculations section could be changed thusly —
"The creature is speculated to have been a creation of Morgoth or Melkor during the First Age. Another is that the creature is a Maia similar to the demonic-inspired Balrogs. Especially after the War of Wrath it can also be speculated that the Watcher in the Water may have hidden away and settled near Moria afterwards. Although how it arrived in Moria Tolkien never stated. Another speculation is that from Gandalf, to which he speculates the origins of the creature may have been due the fact that the mountain held other places where water was fertile and vast, one such river beneath the Bridge of Khazad-dûm may have deep enough for other creatures of it's kind to breed."
"An article at the website Tolkien Gateway speculates that the Watcher is a creation of Morgoth or Melkor from the First Age. Another theory is that it is a Maia, similar to the demon-inspired Balrogs. After the War of Wrath the Watcher in the Water may have hidden away and settled near Moria, although, how it arrived in Moria Tolkien never states. Gandalf hazards a guess, however, that the mountain held other places where water was fertile and vast, deep enough for creatures of its kind to breed."
Reliable sources. The article desperately needs some. Take the above-quoted paragraph for example. Its sole citation (which does not cover all of the material in the passage) is to an article at a fan website that is either a mirror for a Wiki site or is a Wiki itself. It, unfortunately, doesn't contain a single citation to any source, reliable or not. Many of the other sources cited in our WP article fail to meet Verifiability and reliable source requirements —
http://www.tuckborough.net/creatures.html does not appear to be a suitable source since it is some kind of encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not generally accepted as reliable sources (especially since this one lists no author or citations).
A Toyota commercial is identified as an adaptation based on this message board posting. First, a message board is not a credible source. Second, I did a search (because I remembered this commercial) and found no credible source that confirmed Toyota modeled its creature on the Watcher. It's all WP:OR.
Expansion. The article needs it. Once all unsupported statements are removed due to inadequate or questionable sources, there will be little left. As the previous reviewer said, expand. There is a ton of Tolkien material available. Use Google, JSTOR, the library, and the bookstore to do more research. I appreciate and applaud the interest and enthusiasm: keep at it. But the article needs more work. I spent months getting a literature article to GA, and I'm looking at a few more months before I'll be comfortable nominating it for FA. This process takes time and effort. So keep at it, but take care of the issues I and the other reviewer identified before nominating again. Look at some other character article for ideas of what's good. Good luck! and feel free to ask me questions. Jim Dunning | talk 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Toyota commercial
I watched the video, and unfortunately, the creature in it seems to be a generic Kraken-type. The creature has what appears to be an eyestalk and has no visible face or mouth. It doesn't look like the detailed Games Workshop figure. Uthanc (talk) 01:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Lede, Concept and creation, and Speculations sections
The Lede should summarise the contents of the article body, not state information that is not supported elsewhere in the article (per Lead). The statements about the Watcher's origins needs to be covered in other sections of the article (such as Concepts and creations and Speculations) for it to be mentioned in the Lede. By doing this, the ref numbers can be removed from the Lede (thus improving its readability), since they will be covered later in the article.
Also, the text in Concepts and creation needs to be expanded to give context to the statements about The Return of the Shadow material. I know it's referring to Tolkien's early drafts of the novel, but this isn't clear to the casual reader. I don't have a copy of TRotS, otherwise I'd take care of it. Jim Dunning | talk 16:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Did some minor tweaking to take care of this. Jim Dunning | talk 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
GA yet?
Is this ready for GA yet? I mean this is the most information I can get on it because the character in decription is so scarce. I'm even surprised that it's gotten this far. LOTRrules (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found everything I can possibly find on Tolkien. My library has nothing more on it, nor can I find any other books on it. I've been searching for ages, simply put I've expanded this article as much as I could and as much as others have. I'm putting it up fo GA. LOTRrules (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
LOTRules, you may need to go farther afield than your library. The amount of available Tolkien research material is immense. Consider visiting nearby university libraries, or gaining access to professional online research tools (such as JSTOR or WebFeat – you can do this for a fee or through a school). Because the Watcher is such a minor character, it will take more-than-average effort to ferret out information. This could mean using three, four or five university level libraries. You can use online searches to determine which libraries might have significant Tolkien resources before you visit, thus maximizing your efforts. If I can find some more resources, I'll send them your way. Based on some reviewer comments, however, the thinness of the article may mean this will never be a GA article (not every article can be GA). Jim Dunning | talk 11:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
I have a favor to ask: would the serious editors of this article please use Edit Summaries when making changes? It would make tracking the progress of the article so much easier. Also, using the "preview" button would cut down on the sheer number of edits. Thanks. Jim Dunning | talk 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Page numbers
I was going to review this for GA, but this article is so thin I'm not sure what can be done with it. Does this creature really deserve a separate article?
Anyhow, rather than go into all that, I gave it a quick copy-edit. And I noticed that none of the references cite page numbers. I'd have thought this was a pretty obvious thing that needed to put right.
Good luck with your ongoing work on this! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well of course it's short. But it's detailed also and that's what makes it notable. I've seen featured articles that are shorter than this such as Spoo. Anyway I've some new tasks to look for now, the university library thing suggested by Dunning. It's set to expand now. And I wouldn't say it's thin. It's more significant that other articles in the Middle-earth Wikiproject. LOTRrules (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, I wouldn't compare yourselves to Spoo, if you could help it. Anyhow, I see you've put page ranges in, but that wasn't what I meant: I meant specific page numbers for each citation. This means separating out the notes. Which specific page, for instance, has the quotation "We cannot get out. We cannot get out..." etc.?
Meanwhile, the Infobox indicates that this article is about a creature in Tolkein's "Legendarium." The article Legendarium defines this as "a subset of the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien consisting of The Book of Lost Tales, The Sketch of the Mythology and contemporary alliterative verses, the 1930 Quenta and first Annals, the 1937 Quenta and later annals, later Quenta Silmarillion and final Annals." And yet this article states that the Watcher comes from The Lord of the Rings. I don't know which of the two articles is wrong, but there's definitely a contradiction between them. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, the very, very, very first time it appears in the Middle-earth legendarium is in the The Return of the Shadow, I'll put this in in the infobox to avoid confusion. The pages meanwhile I'll have to sort later on. Can you put on the good article page "on hold"? LOTRrules (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fine so Spoo is one of the worst articles that got featured on Wikipedia but this is reliable and more so notable.
I'm not sure this question has been answered yet. Based on the Legendarium article (which seems awfully vague), this character is not part of the Legendarium since it doesn't appear in any of the listed works. Also, to say the first time the character appears is in The Return of the Shadow, is not accurate. The Return of the Shadow is not a work of fiction; it is a book of literary criticism and analysis that documents Tolkien's story development. The Watcher's first published appearance is in The Fellowship and its "appearance" in TRotS is still as part of The Fellowship. So, is The Fellowship of the Ring "part" of the Legendarium? Jim Dunning | talk 05:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Article 2
As of April 12th 2008 the article looks like this I've put this here just as a line of progress. LOTRrules (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found some new sources about 4 I think. I've checked 2 of the local universities in my area. 1 left. LOTRrules (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
GA again x3...
When is someone going to pass this? It's been months.
Alos I've finished on my research. The two uni's have nothing more on it. This is just how much expansion the article can get. LOTRrules (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't push for someone to review so quickly... my first reaction would be to fail. Case in point: the short, choppy, single-sentence paragraphs, not to mention the forced Table of Contents. You may have exhausted every source in the world for this article, that still doesn't make it GA quality. And remember that not all articles have the potential to ever become GA. By the way, since this was put up only two weeks ago on April 10, I fail to see how "It's been months." --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Lead: "Dragons" and "Dwarf" should not be capitalized (unless there is a general consensus in ME articles) as common nouns; the TOC should probably not be set to float left, especially as there is an infobox and the text is somewhat squished between the two; the infobox should not be inside of a table (it will float right automatically, I checked).
Literature: Per the MOS (writing about fiction), plot summaries should be written in the present tense. This is not a plot summary per se, but since it discusses the fiction I think it should probably follow that guideline. This could be a bit tricky. Also, there is not a lot of context; most readers will probably be familiar with LOTR already, but try provide a little more explanation; specifically, I think you should wikilink "Ringbearer".
Concept & creation: The ampersand should not be used; write "and"
"Tolkien's account of the creature at this stage is practically the same as in the final published version, except for the names of other characters. Its emergence, physical appearance, attack on the heroes, and closing of the Moria Gate are already present." These sentences are somewhat awkward—perhaps try combining them?
Origin speculations: Awkward title; probably should be "Speculation of origin" or just "Speculation"; "others have felt free to speculated" should say "speculate"; quotations should not be italicized, quotation marks are enough (unless the quotation is italicized in its original context); the last sentence is a bit out of place, and perhaps should be placed into either of the paragraphs above it; two typos, "psychologicallly" and "spirituallly", should be "psychologically" and "spiritually", and if they are in the original quotation you should place [sic] after them; "albeit implying" should probably read "albeit he implies" (or just get rid of the "albeit" and say "although").
Races of Middle-earth: I don't know the general usage for this template, but it seems a little out-of-place; it should only be used if necessary.
The name "Kraken" is not capitalized in its own article. The way that it is used here is more in the sense of a common noun (using "a", not "the"), so I would consider leaving it all lowercase (if you do, make sure the entire article is consistent).
Portrayal in adaptations: the two images are relatively close together, which is not a major problem, but an alternative would be nice; the link to Bill the Pony needs to be fixed; "Guardian of the Doors of Durin" should be in quotations, not italics; the last sentence is oddly worded (should say "were", not "have been") and a period is needed after film (but before the refs).
See also: Links should be normal-sized; the links don't seem very related—if the two illustrators are relevant, it seems they should probably be included in the body of the article or mentioned somewhere; as for the link to "Rings of Power", I'm not sure why it's there at all.
Per Wikipedia:Layout, the order of sections should be "See also," then "References," then "External links".
References: As there are no footnotes, just refs, the title can be changed to "References", but either way the ampersand should be "and"; amazon.com is not a good source; what is currently reference #11 for the FOTR film (I think?) should have more information, perhaps using Template:Cite video
Make sure all external links are necessary and justifiable—don't put up external links for the sake of putting up external links, or if they can be incorporated/presented within the body of the article.
Overall, looking at the specific criteria, this article is mostly borderline. The prose is not bad, but not particularly well-written either—there are a few odd sentences here and there. The article seems to be relatively broad in its coverage, but the subject itself doesn't seem to really have a lot of information—perhaps a few more good sources would provide the necessary information to give this article what it needs.
I'm going to be putting this article on hold for a week. This is my first GA review, so please bear with me and let me know if you have any issues with my review. I'm optimistic that this article may be able to pass, but it will probably take quite a bit of work.
Points 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,12 done. LOTRrules (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Problem with Number 6 + 11. The template is used to provide a link for the other races of middle-earth. Since the WITW is potentially a race of kraken(s) of dragon(s) the template is neccessary. In addition the cite video template doesn't seem to work. I can't locate the problem so it's either leave it or fix it. LOTRrules (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it's fine to ignore 6 then. For 11, though, even if the template doesn't work, I think more details should be added. I also fixed number 13, so it should make sense now. Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the literature section as well. LOTRrules (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it matter if it were in animals? I don't want another major change. LOTRrules (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that you either pick the Animals category or the Characters category, but not both. It would seem that the Animals category would be more appropriate. Also, reference number eleven (about the FOTR film) must be expanded to include more detail. If the template Template:Cite video doesn't work, that's fine, but it should follow those guidelines—here's an example from its doc page:
The "Literature" section has been expanded and rewritten, but it still needs more work to be broad in its coverage and clearly establish the subject's notability and context. It also needs a heavy copyedit; I've made numerous changes myself, but the quailty of this prose, as the most important section in the article, needs to be near flawless. Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
GAN fail
After having this article on hold for a week, I'm unfortunately going to have to also fail this article from GA. Not all of the problems have yet been addressed. There are still two "citation needed" tags, which need to have references or the material removed; the inline citation for the FotR hasn't been filled in, and there are still minor copy-editing issues with most of the prose in general.
In addition to these problems, I don't think this article is really in-depth or broad enough in its coverage to pass. I'm not saying it's impossible, and it'd be wonderful if I was proved wrong, but after three GA noms and subsequent fails, this article may simply just not have enough available information to ever be a GA. Mr. Absurd (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Recent A-Class listing on this page
The quality rating of this article was recently changed on this page from B to A without going through the review process. I reverted it. (I also reduced the Importance ratings to Low from Mid; this article and its subject are a minor element in both projects' purviews.) Listing as an A-Class article requires a review by project coordinators, which is more stringent than the GAN process this article has repeatedly failed to negotiate. The enthusiasm and passion of the primary editor(s) to upgrade the quality of this article are laudable, but it's somewhat perplexing to see that most of the discussion on this Talk page focuses on article rating rather than the actual quality-improvement. The mistake in understanding the review process aside, it is even more perplexing that an editor felt an A-Class rating is appropriate for an article that has at least four statements identified as being in need of citations and the sentence "The Watcher is used as a hero in Battle for Middle-earth II however making no formel appearance."
Please, focus on quality rather than status. Jim Dunning | talk 03:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Current Status
In the case of extreme vandalism which has been going on for a fair bit this is the original as of today. Lord of MoriaTalkContribs 13:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Bloat - Good Article
It seems this article seeks good article status - perhaps one of its issues would be making too much out of the subject matter - as such I would consider cutting some of the 'bloat'. For example
"Due to the popularity of creature several other items depicting the Watcher were released after the film"
These items may not be truly notable in context.
also
"In The Complete Tolkien Companion, J. E. A. Tyler postulates the Watcher was a cold-drake: "...these dragons rely on their strength and speed alone (the creature that attacked the Ring-Bearer near the Lake of Moria may have been one of these)." "
I've got to question the true worth of a commentator who thinks a dragon has tentacles.
I'm suggesting that the article could do with parts removing but I'll leave that to those that look after it to do that.87.102.86.73 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. The commentary is used to provide critical analysis of the character which is one of the criteria for GA pass. The main problem is that the article need to be expanded and that is why it seems to fail. To pass it needs to expand. I've taken out the cruft and added appropriate sections. Lord of Moria (Avicenna)TalkContribs 23:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Watcher in the Water. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
