Talk:A Secret Vice/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this, hopefully over the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments prior to formal review

 * Per MOS:REFERS, the title should talk about A Secret Vice as being the lecture, not as its title.
 * -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I think lectures count as MOS:MINORWORKS, and should therefore be non-italicised and in double quotes.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : use the present tense, as you have previously.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : I know what this means, but it's a bit awkward, as publishing the works made them no longer unpublished. We also take for granted that a work was unpublished until its first publication.
 * Added "previously" to indicated that it hadn't been released beforehand. Feel free to change as needed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : not a major problem, but was conlanging a term used at the time? I wonder whether "constructing artificial languages" with the same link would be less anachronistic?
 * Why is Animalic in italics? We don't italicise "French", for example. What does "involved with" mean here?
 * Animalics, regarding the "involved with" part, I assumed it meant that T was involved in its creation or used it as a youth -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there any way to be more precise: what does the source say here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : WP:SEAOFBLUE
 * Added "of" to separate the wikilinks

More to follow.

A few more:


 * : a nit-pick, but I would generally refer to the work as "the lecture" or similar, as the text is only a (much later) recording of what was said.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : I think this should be the need for (as in, the idea that we need one).
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : not quite grammatical: in terms of isn't idiomatic here, and the overall meaning isn't clear. Would suggest something like "he then attempts to categorise these languages by their level of complexity" or similar: development isn't a great term (after all, everyone's constructed language is exactly as developed as its developers think it needs to be), but you may have a better view on what T. was driving at here.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : comma after animal names.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : I'm not sure what this means.
 * : no commas around and (and see my comment earlier about "conlanging" as potentially anachronistic).
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, language names should not be in italics unless we're specifically talking about the name of/word for that language (rather than the language itself).
 * : this is very clunky in the passive voice.
 * Changed to active voice -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : hm -- what does T. mean by this? Most linguists would consider it a meaningless concept.
 * (random Tolkienist editor intruding:) That T. had worked out the phonetics of the conlang rather more fully, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Still not totally happy here: it's a perfectly valid opinion that a constructed language is somehow better if its phonology is more restrictively defined, or differs more from the constructor's native language, but that is just an opinion: we should be as clear as we can about what we mean by developed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, I think you're trying too hard here. The meaning is just that the thing was worked out in more detail rather than being a hasty (childish) sketch. Any wording in that direction should be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : I would contextualise these as to what they are and where they're from, as we have for other conlangs.
 * : by likening.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : this could be clearer.
 * The sentence about the 2016 publication is a bit of a run-on: do we really need the publisher here (but nowhere else)?
 * Tried to trim the prose


 * Per MOS:MINORWORKS, essay titles should be deitalicised and in double quotes. Capitalise "Its" as a pronoun.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The final paragraph of "Publication" starts with an extremely long run-on sentence: suggest splitting.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : I'm generally a fan of introducing new people, but why does Fauskanger get an introduction when most others don't?
 * The first two sentences of the Fauskanger quote don't seem to add very much, or to say very much that a plain-language paraphrase couldn't, and therefore would be good candidates for cutting under WP:NFCC.
 * : need to restate T's name here.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The reviews of the 2016 edition are all sourced to themselves, rather than a secondary treatment. This isn't a problem in itself, but means we need to be careful about how much airtime we give them (not having secondary sources to plead WP:DUEWEIGHT): in particular, the Fisher review gets a lot more space than the others. It might be wise to group the reviews by the sort of points they make, rather than treating each individually.
 * In the reference to Smith 2017 (and other reviews), the title of the book should be italicised.
 * ✅ -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

That's probably all for now. I'll let you chip in on them before we do the formalities and spotchecks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your thorough review! I'm currently travelling, but I should be able to address your points over the weekend.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's great: take your time and I look forward to your responses when you're ready. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've went ahead and did my best to implement GAR recs, as marked above. Of course, feel free to amend the content as needed but hopefully this helps facilitate the GAR for you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments -- a few replies above; I'll give the article another read and then get to spotchecks when I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Secret vice.jpg: standard FUR for a book cover.
 * File:J. R. R. Tolkien, ca. 1925.jpg: US PD status hinges on being publicly displayed prior to 1929. The box states that it was displayed shortly after creation, and that this was no later than 1926, but I can't see any source for that information: what reason do we have to believe it?
 * File:Dimitra Fimi 2020.jpg: checks out.


 * Hi UndercoverClassicist - many apologies for not getting around to this review, I've been completely snowed under over the last month. I haven't been able to find a text source to confirm the copyright status of the image, so have removed it from the article. Perhaps something to bring up on the talk page of Tolkien's article as it's the main image, and the other on Commons is dreadful, but that's a discussion for another day., thank you so much for addressing the review points, I'm completely indebted to you. If that was the only outstanding remark, are we OK to progress to spotchecks?  Frzzl <u style="color:#fff"> talk; <u style="color:#fff">contribs  21:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot checks
To follow.


 * Note 3: : not quite supported by the source, which has . He could have been open about his hobby without making a public exposition of his views on how to do it best. The citation is broadly given: is there another passage that better fits, or another source?
 * I've changed "hobbies" to "views" to accord with the source. His talk did of course also make it plain that his views were closely tied to his hobby. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note 5: : I don't see this supported in the source.
 * The source says "As to the title, some readers over the years may have found it a little strange that Christopher Tolkien opted for "A Secret Vice," the title Tolkien recalled more than thirty years after the lecture, rather than "A Hobby for the Home," as given in the manuscript (Monsters 3-4)", which would seem to be quite sufficient for the claim made in the text here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note 8: : this checks out.

Two points to look at above. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've replied to the two points above, so the article should be good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Happy that this meets the GA standards and so to pass. Well done to you both for your work on the article. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)