Talk:England in Middle-earth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 08:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been sitting around for a while with no reviews. Since I haven't edited this article (as far as I could recall), I'd be happy to review it. Taking down notes, will be back with commentary soon. Haleth (talk) 08:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's very good of you, thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the article is structurally sound with good research work, but as part of the GAN process, I guess I am supposed to nitpick on prose. One thing I should note, the results of a copyvio detector program I've used to run an analysis of the article indicate that aspects of the article appears to be a little too close to the prose of Aaron Isaac Jackson's thesis. That said, the points made by Jackson in his thesis appear to be properly cited and referenced in this article, but perhaps more thorough paraphrasing is necessary to fully satisfy criteria #2 of the GA assessment criteria? I look forward to your response. Haleth (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. The great majority of the (very slight) overlap is in the titles of books, in particular the repeated phrase "The Lord of the Rings" (not easy to avoid here...), and in a quotation from a letter by Tolkien, neither of which are in any way copyvios from Jackson. Both of us, too, have quoted and cited Rosebury and Shippey, again, hard to avoid as they're among the major scholars who have defined this corner of the field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing clarification as well as additional context behind the sourcing. My interpretation is that the results are a false positive, and that there is neither copyright violation nor issues of plagiarism on this article. It's a pass for me. Haleth (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I have left my comments about specific passages as follows:

Lede

 * Could you break up the first part of the lede, as it felt a little unwieldy. Maybe phrase it as England and Englishness is represented in various forms within J. R. R. Tolkien's writings of Middle-earth, break it up with a full stop, and then lead into the examples like this it appears, more or less thinly disguised, in the form of the Shire and the lands close to it; in kindly characters such as Treebeard, Faramir, and Théoden; in its industrialised state as Isengard and Mordor; and as Anglo-Saxon England in Rohan. Or something along these lines.
 * Done.


 * Is it necessary to bold "a mythology for England"? I thought the title of the page is already represented or highlighted in the first paragraph. It's also an unofficial term, at best, to describe the specific analysis of an English subtext in the mythology of Middle-earth.
 * It's a significant redirect target and search term, which is why it's bolded.
 * I am not certain if "A mythology for England" should redirect to this article as opposed to English mythology, but then again, I believe it is outside of the scope of this review.

England

 * Since this is essentially a dictionary-like description, perhaps we could whitelink shire to the corresponding Wiktionary entry? It's just a suggestion.
 * Linked.


 * Could you add its hobbit residents after with? I thought it would be clearer for the reader since the sentence may give people who are not Tolkien aficionados the impression of referring to the visiting Frodo and friends instead.
 * Done.


 * I think you should whitelink it like this: spirit of place. I am aware of what the term means, but I am not sure if the general reader will understand the context behind that analysis, as the idea of genius loci as understood in Western mythology is not a widely known or used concept. The alternative would be to provide a brief and succinct explanation on what a "spirit of place" is within the prose itself.
 * Linked.

Englishness

 * I think the flow of this sentence could be reworked. My interpretation is that it is supposed to convey that Frodo "still embodies some of the elements of Englishness, but lacking the simple cheerfulness of the other hobbits because of his Celtic sorrow and Nordic doom". What do you think?
 * Done.


 * I think by now, the article has moved on from "England" or the idea of such a place being transported to Middle-earth towards the concept of "Englishness", so this sentence probably should be rewritten to instead talk about English etiquette or mannerisms. Perhaps something along the lines of Kindly characters with archetypal English mannerisms such as Treebeard, Faramir, and Théoden?
 * Done.


 * I think the subheading of "Old English heroes, races, and monsters" should be covered under the broader "A mythology for England", maybe right after "A reconstructed prehistory", since it properly discusses the concept. As a reader, I was startled when the first instance of "English mythology" I read is that "Tolkien regretted that hardly anything was left of English mythology", without the concept of English mythology or the lack of one first being explained and dealt with.
 * Moved.

'A mythology for England'

 * I'm not sure why "the illusion of surveying a past, pagan but noble and fraught with deep significance—a past that itself had depth and reached backward into a dark antiquity of sorrow" is in its own paragraph. It's not that long a quote and I note that other direct quotations in the article of a shorter or equivalent length is written as part of a paragraph.
 * If anything, I'd rather pull one or two more quotes out, than push this one in. What Flieger is saying here is that Tolkien's statement encapsulates a large part of Tolkien's intention (and her scholarship on him). I feel it's more than worthy of its own quote-paragraph.
 * Ok, fair enough.


 * I would prefer if this is broken up somewhere. Instead of a comma, how about a semi-colon or a full stop, followed by ''it grew and took shape...."
 * Done.


 * I sense a hidden verb. I think an extra word is necessarily here, like "nearer to" or "closer to"?
 * This is an English (qua "British") idiom; I've added "to" to assist our transatlantic friends.


 * It should be rewritten and connected to the preceding sentence.
 * Done.


 * I don't think this sentence should be written to address the reader directly, the "save you" part that is. Either rework it to the original quote, or make another attempt to paraphrase it.
 * Edited.