Talk:Trolls in Middle-earth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dyveldi (talk · contribs) 18:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A am really sorry. I do realize the honest work put in to collect these bits and pieces that are the article by now.
 * I have added multiple reliable sources; the article is fully sourced.

It just has not worked. Comments are found on Articles for deletion/Troll (Middle-earth).
 * That's your opinion, nothing to do with the GA criteria.

The lead needs to be completely rewritten. It does not tally with sources, the "real world" or with article content. The article does not meet criteria 1 a.
 * The "real world" is not a verifiable source and has no role in the GA criteria.
 * I'll check the lead summarizes the article and rewrite if necessary.
 * Done.

Even having read the sources it is hard to understand the prose. It does not meet 3 a and b. It does not adress the main topic and does not stay focused on the topic.
 * I'm sorry you find me unreadable. As it happens, I received an 'A' in my 'Use of English' exam many years ago, and have been found exceptionally clear by readers of my technical books; I've also brought over 250 articles to 'Good Article' status, so I believe I can write. However, I will certainly read through and copy-edit the article.
 * Copy-edited; also added links for ease of reading.
 * The article certainly addresses the topic of Middle-earth trolls, but I will review it for coverage and focus.
 * Coverage and focus seem basically appropriate, really.

It needs to loose the comments about Bauer entirely. There is no connection between Tolkien and Bauer.
 * Attebery is certainly a reliable source, and discusses the Bauer-Tolkien connection, rightly or wrongly. The article reports and attributes Attebery's opinion. Given that a source has covered this aspect, it is correct for the article to cover it. I have not found any scholars disputing Attebery here but I will check for that and include their views if such can be found.
 * Seems fine, really.

The section about redaction needs to be completely rewritten to tally with the source. Possibly not included in this article as the source discusses the Christian soul and Tolkiens Fea. It is at present a random collection of bits and pieces from sources that give one piece of information each. The bits and pieces does not fit well together.
 * I'll check this over.
 * The 'Redaction' section seems to me coherent and convincing, but that's really a matter for the GA reviewer.

This is far from a good article. The one thing it really lacks is at least one source connecting the dots, i.e. giving a presentation of Tolkiens trolls in at least a bit of depth. This one needs a lot more work. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 18:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hartley is certainly one such source, as noted by another editor in the AfD; Attebery is another.


 * Hi Dyveldi, thank you for stating your opinion. I am afraid that as an involved editor in the recent AfD on the same article, you should probably not have reviewed this article now, and you should certainly not attempt to review it again: that would be entirely inappropriate. Needless to say, I do not agree with you, as documented point-by-point above, but I will pay attention to your statements when I further edit the article and document my responses here for the attention of any future reviewer. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the article today and also followed the latest revisions. I have consulted a lot of the sources used in the article, actually bought them. I have read Hartley and Attebery and neigther gives anything like an overview. Attebery does not connect Bauer and Tolkien. The "real world" refers to the "real" trolls in Scandinavian myth, legend and folklore. The connection to these real stories are very important for Tolkiens trolls. Several of the sources make a point of this, but the point does not come through in the article and the trolls in the lead are completely out of sync with the "real" trolls. It is not very difficult to source the "real" trolls. It is rather a question of not drowning in good sources. The article does not read well because the bits and pieces does not connect to a whole. It does not reflect on the makeup of each sentence. Since you as well have been involved in the recent Afd on the same article you should probably not have nominated this article now. My despair is that at present I do not see a way in to make the article acceptable whithout a complete rewriting. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, as with many things, there's actually no hurry, and some perspective in time will I think help. I'll work on the list above and decide the way ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

llywrch writes
So many points here that need addressing, so little time to address them.
 * First, IMHO, Tolkien's trolls are distinctive enough from the Scandinavian trolls to merit an article. I find the various sources cited support this distinction.
 * Many thanks.

These two points make this article worth reading. However,
 * I also find there is enough information to show that Tolkien's interpretation of a troll changed over his literary career, arguably in harmony with his religious beliefs.
 * Good to hear it.


 * I came away with a feeling that this article was scattered & not well-organized, sometimes repeating its points. Which is odd since a look at the table of contents it's clear there is a structure. (If I had more time, I could likely identify what gives me this feeling.) But I suspect this is nothing a careful re-write couldn't fix.
 * Thank you. Copy-edited. Merged discussion of in-fiction origins. Reduced repetition between books.


 * I felt way too much space was devoted to discussing the Scandinavian trolls. It is a given that Tolkien took the concept of troll from Northern & Germanic myths & folklore; space is not needed to explain what the mythical/folklore troll was.
 * Not really. Much of the 'In folklore and early fantasy' section is taken up with showing how Tolkien's trolls differ from the Norse variety; the Tolkien half of that is clearly essential, and it wouldn't make a lot of sense without a brief account of the Norse half, and that part is very brief. I've retitled the section 'Differences ...' to make this purpose clear.


 * (And we don't need the footnote about "trow"; we simply need to be told that Tolkien's audience was familiar with the creatures called trolls before he published his books. At least from the fairy tale "Billy Goat Gruff".)
 * Removed. Fairy tales already discussed.


 * BTW, I find it odd, if not surprising, that there is not one link in this article to Troll.
 * These things happen. Added both a wikilink and a main link.


 * The section about a high school portrayal of trolls is not informative.
 * Removed.


 * The use of tags to the various cited experts becomes distracting & tiresome. (I'm talking about passages like "The English scholar Jennifer Eastman Attebery", "The Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey", "The medievalist Marjorie Burns", & so on. For one thing, if a cited source has an article, it can be assumed that source is reliable.) I'd trim away most, if not all, of them.
 * Well, other Middle-earth article reviewers have the opposite opinion, and without naming the experts there are the dangers of being accused of plagiarism, close paraphrasing without attribution, and even original research; while if I name them without saying what they are famous for, reviewers ask "Who's Bloggs?" and demand at least a brief gloss. So, a certain degree of clunkiness is inevitable, but I'll copy-edit where possible.

As I said, this is all based on one quick read-thru. But I agree with Dyveldi this article is not ready for GA. Getting there, but it hasn't quite arrived. -- llywrch (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I will work through your comments shortly. I'm accustomed to working with GA reviewers to improve articles beyond what one pair of eyes can see, and can make changes quickly within a GAN timeframe. It seems to me from these comments that the article is in fact very close now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, having revised the article and heard nothing from anyone, I think it will be best to start afresh, so I shall close this review now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, this is a very premature self-close, only nine days after the most recent comment, and no attempt made to ping either reviewer. Given that these are unsettled times, it's not a time to be precipitous. I am reverting your closure and renomination, and pinging both Dyveldi and llywrch to see if they have further comments. If not, I'll see about finding a new reviewer to take over. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

More

 * I have not had time to go through all the recent changes in depth and a thorough reading will have to wait. The article have come a long way though and I wish to pay may compliments for the work done. This is in itself a very good result of this discussion. There is still quite a bit I am not happy about. A few comments on points I have noted based on the sources I have read:
 * Thank you.


 * - Fawcett's Ph.d. is a new source and a really very very good one. Fawcett should be used much more. Fawcett is exactly what we were looking for in Articles for deletion/Troll (Middle-earth).
 * Added more from Fawcett.


 * - Still needs to loose Bauer. This belongs in the article about trolls in general.
 * Bauer is mentioned, very briefly, to show how trolls arrived into modern literature. While the other article may cover him in (much) more detail, a brief summary is necessary and appropriate here.


 * Needs to loose the bachelor student Veenman. Bachelor students are not reliable sources.
 * OK, we may be able to do without.


 * I do not like Day The Dark Powers of Tolkien since from what Google allows you to read his etymology is wrong. For etymology please read Terence H. Wilbur: TROLL, AN ETYMOLOGICAL NOTE Scandinavian Studies, Vol. 30, No. 3 (AUGUST, 1958), pp. 137-139 Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40916186. Day claims that the word troll comes from an old word Old Norse word meaning fiend, demon or jótunn and he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
 * OK, removed Day's etymology and added Wilbur.


 * - Needs to loose the section "Redaction" and probably Hartley as source as well, at least reduce the use. Fawcett touches on the same theme, but does not quote Hartley. Apart from having read Hartley, Fawcett is another reason I do not think Hartley should be used or at least not as prominently as he is now.
 * I've merged the section and compressed Hartley; what he says is perfectly coherent and logical, even if you don't agree with him.


 * - Rudolf Simek is at present not used in the article and his books Mittelerde ISBN 978 3 406 69333 5, Trolle ISBN 9783412507435 and Monster im Mittelalter ISBN 9783412514044 should be used. Simek is a reliable source on both Tolkien and trolls in mythology and folktales. Simek really connects the dots as far as I can see. He will be very useful in the article about trolls as well. John Lindow Trolls: An Unnatural History is also reliable on both counts but he did not yield much on Tolkien's trolls. Along with Fawcett Simek seems to be the best reliable source actually writing more than a few scattered sentences about Tolkien's trolls. Simek does not seem to be translated from German to English and this I guess will be a challenge for most of the participants in this discussion myself included. I read German, but not quite as fast as English.
 * Well if you'd provide the relevant passages from Simek's books (you can email me from my user page), I'll be happy to cite them, especially if he has anything that differs significantly from the major themes laid out in the article. I'd have thought the article already covered "the main points" however. I can read German. I've added Lindow. With robust sources like Fawcett the article is certainly not reliant on "a few scattered sentences". Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , You can access Simek's discussion of trolls by visiting the Google Books page for Mittelerde and searching "Trolle". Or at least, I was able to do so. buidhe 10:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, yes, I can see what seem to be the key pages, and while the discussion is useful it's not anything I've not read elsewhere, which confirms that the article covers what scholars think are the main points correctly. I've added a mention and a citation.


 * - I am not happy about the structure. To comment further I will have to read Simek much closer and his book Trolle arrived yesterday. The basic problem this article has is finding good sources to support not just content but also structure. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have simplified and clarified the structure. There can be very little wrong with Appearances (Hobbit, Rings, Silmarillion) - Origins (Folklore/fairytale, In-fiction) - Adaptations (Film, Games) really, it is simple and necessary to cover the territory. All the content in each section is reliably sourced, and the sources provided easily justify the existence of each section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - The source situation is a bit of a challenge. You'll have to be patient with me.
 * - In the above I completely forgot John D. Rateliff The History of the Hobbit: Mr Baggins and Return to Bag-End. HarperCollins Publishers. Kindle Edition. ISBN 978 000744082 5 which has several pages (Kindle does not show how many) discussing Tolkien's trolls.
 * That will only be the trolls in The Hobbit. Happy to cite Rateliff but that part is well covered already.
 * - I am sorry, but the chapter "09 Trolle in der Literatur des 20. und 21. Jahrhunderts" in Simek's book Trolle is 30 printed pages and the sub chapters "Die einflussreichtsten Trolle des 20. Jahrhunderts" and "Tolkien'sche Trolle und kein Ende: High Fantasy" are 17 pages. I can't very well email copies of all these pages without violating copyright. This is not about Tolkien alone, but a really substantial bit is. Providing meaningful quotes will mean a lot closer reading than I have had time for. This part of the book is very promising and Simek discusses Tolkien's influence on later trolls in depth. He does also discuss preTolkien trolls in literature both Scandinavian and English.
 * I don't think we need the preTolkien material here, we have enough on that already. German isn't too much of a problem. I think we mainly only need the Tolkien section, and if you can select some parts of that, it would be helpful.
 * - Simek does also discusses how Trolls arrived in modern literature. Bauer is not the reason, but Bauer is an illustrator of Swedish childrens stories. Simek discusses Bauer in chapter "08 Die Kinderbuchtrolle in Skandinavien und Deutschland" (pp 153-168).
 * Bauer is shown as an illustrator in the article.
 * - Some trolls existed previously in modern literature, for instance Dovregubben in Peer Gynt is one of the famous ones, but Simek writes "Wenn gerade behauptet wurde, dass ohne Tolkien wohl kaum Trolle in der Fantasyliteratur des späten 20. Jahrhunderts zu finden wären, dann lässt sich dies zumindest für High Fantasy belegen. Which means something like: Whithout Tolkien there probably would not have been any trolls in fantasy literature. At least not in high fantasy (my quick translation may be inaccurate). We really do need Simek for this article and I am so sorry it is only on paper and also in German.
 * - I do think Fawcett should be used when discussing the "soul of trolls" issue. She is a far better source than Hartley.
 * I've read both, and they make similar points. But I'll look again.


 * - Please be patient with me. I am one of those who read sources very closely, several times, and then write. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 14:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, ok; patience is more likely now that you're being constructive! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. I'll have to write in the article and have definitely left the role as reviewer some time ago. I also do not mind that a second reviewer was asked for initially.
 * - And just as important for the record. It is always easier to comment and critizise an article than writing the article itself. In this case the starting point was rather hopless. I completely despaired of being able to more than shorten it to a very few sentences and thought it best to use as a redirect.


 * - If Chiswick Chap had not put in such hard and good work I would not have bothered to comment on the article. I might critizise parts, but that is as I say far easier than the work Chiswick Chap has put in. Now I'll read the sources and see how they best can be used to go on evolving the article. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat  ✉ post 15:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Dyveldi. Looking forward to your additions. I'll add a note about your status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , you'll see from the above that we do indeed need a second reviewer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap, if there are about to be some significant additions, would it make sense to hold off starting with a new reviewer for a few days for them to be made? I could ask someone today if you want it all set up, but they probably wouldn't want to begin until the new material has been completed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that the article is in fact pretty much complete; I've looked through Simek's account of trolls and it's much like that of other scholars; I've cited it. Most of what he has to say would concern Troll, not this article. I don't know how long it takes to find somebody, but if you can get a reviewer for sometime in the coming week that would be splendid. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

 * Excessive use of quote boxes. I see no point in the first two or the last one at all, and the third would need to be further contextualized as "Tolkein's description of the trolls in ...".
 * Removed those three; added context to the remaining one.


 * Copyvio check looks fine
 * Noted.


 * Second paragraph of Origins is off topic
 * Removed.


 * The introduction for most of the commenters is "The scholar of X [Name]" - could it be changed up a bit? It appears frequently enough that the repetition has grown annoying. Some of these also need commas. (It's also a little more unnatural than other ways to do it, which doesn't help)
 * Done.


 * Is there a purpose to the Hunnestad Monument image?
 * Removed.


 * Shippey is referenced before he is introduced
 * Fixed.


 * The Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey criticises Tolkien's depiction of the trolls in The Hobbit, and that of its goblins "incidentally still too close to munitions workers as the trolls were to labourers". I'm a bit too tired to try to decipher this, but let's say it needs to be rewritten so that readers can understand without having to think a lot
 * Rewritten.


 * What's a troll's purse?
 * Glossed.


 * Is Morris having visited places with Troll in the name actually relevant?
 * Yes, as Tolkien is following Morris's account step by step, trolls included. Added a gloss.


 * Burns notes, too, that the adventure with the three trolls combines the fear of being eaten with the temptation of delicious food This needs to be better connected either with Morris or mutton, or to be worked in better if not related to one of those topics.
 * Connected.


 * had created a serious problem for himself: were trolls and other monsters supposed to be sentient, and in Christian terms therefore to have souls? It's probably possible to rephrase this in a way to avoid the question
 * Done.


 * In the next sentence, Tolkein doesn't really address it so much as acknowledge it, in that quotation
 * Said so.


 * The last paragraph of the speech, sentience, souls part seems to have moved away from speech and onto the other two topics. Then it ends of a short statement about speech. That's a strange ending, perhaps rework this.
 * Good point. I've moved the speech part to the previous paragraph, where it certainly fits better.


 * In the lead, the last little paragraph on adaptation could be moved up to the first sentence, like "Trolls are fictional characters in J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth, and feature in films and games adapted from Tolkien's novels." or something.
 * Done.


 * Can the cave troll be right aligned, since it's looking left?
 * Done.


 * How does Two Towers make use of animated cave trolls? Can this be at least a little expanded on?
 * The source seems to be mistaken; since it also discusses the cave troll of the earlier film, The Fellowship of the Ring, I've moved it up.


 * Is the Olog-hai image from the film or the game? Caption and section disagree?
 * From the film. I've moved the image up.


 * And if it's in the film, why is this not in the prose?
 * Mentioned.


 * on hold Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's all done to date. Thank you very much for your help here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work - a review of the lengthy comments above, and I'm still now happy to pass this. Kingsif (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)