Talk:Rings of Power/GA1

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 02:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like I can't not review this. Guettarda (talk) 02:41, 25 April 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:

Many thanks for taking this on. One or both of us will reply promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) and User:Haleth 07:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * I don't love Scholars have suggested multiple sources of inspiration for the Rings of Power and Scholars have commented on the symbolism of the Rings of Power because (a) opening sentences of paragraphs in the lead should be more information dense (since people don't actually read very far into the articles) and (b) they start with the unfortunate "scholars say" structure that MOS:WEASEL discourages. Flipping the opening sentences (to something like Proposed sources of inspiration for the Rings of Power include...) would make them more "meaty", while avoiding the "scholars say" structure (albeit just by eliding things, but I think that's ok in the lead).
 * Done.


 * Second paragraph: which indeed features - "indeed" feels like an editorial comment.
 * Removed.

Fictional history

 * Second sentence: They were led by Celebrimbor - since the Rings of Power are the subject of the previous statement, "they" here could easily be taken to mean the Rings rather than the smiths.
 * Fixed.


 * Third sentence: Humiliated by the fall of his master Morgoth... - the jump here is a bit abrupt, and could leave a reader initially thinking you were still talking about.
 * Reworded.


 * Same sentence: the Dark Lord Sauron - what's a Dark Lord? I feel like a reader who wasn't familiar with LoTR or high fantasy in general might need a bit more context.
 * Reworded. It's always hard to know how far back to go when introducing a topic; in a sense, all of this paragraph is already "background".


 * Sentence 4: under the guise of a fair-looking emissary - "guise" and "fair-looking" are somewhat archaic and probably would be challenging to some readers
 * Reworded.


 * Same sentence: transform Middle-earth with the light of Valinor - a couple words of explanation, something like "the home of the immortal Valar" (to steal a phrase from the Valinor article because I'm too lazy to craft my own words) would save the reader a click-through to figure out what Valinor was.
 * Added gloss.


 * Sentence 5: link Lindon (to Geography of Middle-earth)
 * Linked.


 * Para 2, last sentence is unsourced
 * Actually, it doesn't further the story here, so I've removed it.


 * Para 3, sentence 5: took it for his own - this is the precise phrasing from the book, and not the only was to express this. Best to reword this.
 * Reworded.

Inspiration

 * Third paragraph, final sentence: Jeanette White from CBR suggested - spell out Comic Book Resources
 * Done.

Adaptations

 * Second paragraph, fourth sentence: Tolkien illustrator Alan Lee, employed as conceptual designers - unless I'm misreading this, designer should be singular. (That whole sentence is a bit complex, and could be improved.)
 * Done, copy-edited, and split the sentence.


 * Third para, final sentence about the extended edition - unless I missed it, this doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source.
 * Removed.


 * The final paragraph about the video game seems to stray so far from Tolkien's conception of the Rings of Power that it feels like a stretch to call it an adaptation. I'm having a hard time seeing how it belongs. Guettarda (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Simplified to focus on Rings. Both sentences mention Rings of Power. Tolkien's story is the basis of the game, which has adapted it for its own purposes. I suppose we could use another heading such as "Derivatives" but it's a less common term. Perhaps we should more properly say "In adaptations", as it is the story that is adapted, not the Rings.

Looks good. Thanks for doing the work to get all of these articles up to GA. Guettarda (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)