Talk:Smith of Wootton Major/GA1

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'd like to take up this review, along with Farmer Giles of Ham. I should be able to get through both either tomorrow or overmorrow :D 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

 * 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 (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * No plagiarism (phew!), OR, etc. Ref section looks good to me.
 * 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.:
 * Every edit for a while has been Chiswick Chap, so hopefully you're not having an edit war with yourself...
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * All non-free content is properly tagged; captions are fine
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All non-free content is properly tagged; captions are fine
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

- I'm really sorry, but I'm going to have to quickfail this review, due to the entire Plot Summary section being plagiarism of this website. Plagiarism was introduced in rev 209751380 by User:Elphion. I'll submit the article for a revdel. This is such a shame, the rest of the article was looking good. 10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I should add, please renom it! The article is definitely up to scratch. 10:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * , Elphion certainly did NOT copy from that site, so the copyying must be in the other direction. Here's why. Elphion made this edit at 18:53 on 2 May 2008, which consisted of a series of small copy-edits, e.g. he changed "...Wootton Major is well-known..." to "Wootton ...Major was well-known..." and so on throughout the section; and the other website has the text WITH Elphion's copy-edits included. So we do not have a copyvio in Smith of Wootton Major, nor any reason to worry here about this GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For posterity, this was a mistake on my part - for proceedings, see the talk page, and my talk page. The review'll continue. - 19:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Points
Alright, state of the review is that the article is in good shape, and all that's left is a prose review and spotchecks (I did the rest before I found the non-copyvio). Points coming below. 19:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

 * Can we put something like "American scholar" before Verlyn Flieger? To show her relevance to it.
 * Done.

Background

 * remove "famous"
 * Done.

Analysis

 * I know you linked to Leaf by Niggle in the hatnote, but can you put a few words of who that is in the sentence for context/uninformed reader?
 * Added.


 * Link Tolkien studies
 * Linked.


 * Redlink Jonathan Evans (academic), he seems worthy of an article, likewise for Martin Sternberg
 * Linked both.


 * -> better integrates the quote into the prose.
 * Done.


 * "She states at once" -> "at once" should be removed, is superfluous and unnecessarily complicates the phrase
 * Removed.


 * What do you think about "his own poem" -> "his own poem itself"? imo adds a bit of clarity
 * Um, no, I don't think that helps.
 * Fine by me - F


 * "Whatever the case" perhaps sounds a little glib? Maybe replace with "nevertheless" or "still," or something of the sort.
 * Reworded.

Other

 * External links section needs a quick polish - the second link is dead, it would be nice if the first had a short sentence about its provenance.
 * Done.

Spotchecks coming soon! 19:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks
4 of the sources are open access as of rev 1170895114 (4, 5, 9, and 12), so I've checked all uses of them - all seems fine there in terms of accuracy, but two points below:


 * Secondary source 4 (Pauline Baynes) is linked to the article for source 5, not the paper! - The DOI linked to a paper, which looks like the correct thing haha; can you add the page number (44) to the citation?
 * Ref 4's URL and DOI link to the same thing, Hasirci 2021; added the page number.


 * Speaking of source 5, it's a blog written by collectors of Baynes' work - is this a reliable source?
 * Hammond and Scull are not book collectors but extremely experienced Tolkien scholars who have researched and written major works including the 2,300 page The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide. So, yes, we can rely on them.

I want to ask for some quotations for some of the offline sources - can you give me the following:


 * Full sentence for secondary ref 6
 * Defeat hangs heavy in Smith of Wootton Major. Smith has to hand over his star, and return to Faërie no more..."


 * First and fifth uses of the Flieger "Pitfalls in Faerie"
 * "There is some validity in both the autobiographical and the allegorical elements that are genuinely to be found for those who seek them; nevertheless, neither accounts for the story's gossamer appeal. It must be conceded, however, that to some extent it invites reading as allegory and that Tolkien is in part responsible."
 * "If "The Sea-bell" can be read as—on one level, at least—Tolkien's corrective to Mary Rose, then Smith of Wootton Major might well be seen as a kind of corrective to "The Sea-bell", sweetening the bitterness of the pain and gently balancing this loss with renewed appreciation for the things of this world."


 * - pinging you in case you haven’t seen these, since you’ve been onwiki today. Do you have access to these sources? 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * apologies, didn’t see that you fixed them. Thanks for adding author-links to Scull and Hammond.  17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's everything now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then, I’m happy with the article; I’m ok mobile atm, so I shall pass it later this evening. Thank you for putting up with me! 18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)