Talk:Dol Guldur/GA2

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

The article fails criteria 3.a. Broad in its coverage. While the article is mostly very well written, and covers the material it has excellently, the lack of non-fictional content in the article means it should be de-listed as a GA. --Davémon (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article lacks any real-word context for the impact of the fiction.
 * The article lacks any acknowledgment of the creative process that went towards the creation of the fiction.
 * The article lacks any reference to critical literature that discusses the fiction.
 * The article is mostly in-universe, and plot summary.

For my money, the article comes at this from the wrong angle. Although the appropriate wording (..in the fictional world of ...) is used to ensure that the reader is aware that this is a fictional location, the article is still written as though we are discussing a real place with a real history.
 * 4u1e comments

WP:WAF tells us that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference." This article does not do that. If we are using the real world as our primary frame of reference, I would expect to see sections dealing with the role the location plays in the books it appears in, how and when the location was dreamed up by Tolkien, what influences the location has had on other writers, film-makers etc. I would not expect to see details of the 'history', 'culture' or 'politics' of the location. Given Tolkien's predilection for inventing languages, a section on the etymology of the name would be relevant, but should be about the author and how and why he invented this name, and not about the fictional backstory he invented.

In summary, I think what I'm saying is that the current article has good, well referenced content, but as it stands is far better suited to a site like Tokien Gateway (also a wiki) than Wikipedia and could in fact usefully be transferred there. In its current form it should certainly not be a GA. For Wikipedia, new material should be added that focusses on the out of universe perspective, and the current content should be heavily trimmed back (to perhaps a quarter or less of its current length) to act only as supporting material for the out of universe stuff.

I suspect that there is actually very little to say about Dol Guldur from a real world perspective, and that may suggest that the topic should not have a dedicated article at all. However, that depends on what real world stuff can be dug up. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some excellent suggestions for improving the article there. As there have been no challenges, the article has been delisted. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)