Talk:Women in The Lord of the Rings/GA1

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy to review this intriguing article.
 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Summary

 * 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:


 * The text Tolkien didn't think much about the female sex. Yes, he was happily married, and yes, he did have a daughter. But his wife, Edith Mary, and daughter, Priscilla, seemed to have practically no influence on his writing. can also be found in the Chicago Tribune (here). I would paraphrase the text in the article. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The text already has that passage in quotation marks, cited and explicitly attributed in a paragraph that begins "The Chicago Tribune stated that...", so whatever else the passage is, it's not a copyvio. It is a small part of that article, and sufficiently distinctive and relevant to be well worth quoting, attributing, and citing. To make this totally plain, I've spelt out the names of the journalists, and repeated them further down in the paragraph. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Imo the article's title is misleading—many of the female characters in the work are not women—and needs I think to be discussed on the talk page. It's noticeable, for instance, that of the major characters discussed in depth in the article, only Éowyn is human. I would consider changing it to something like 'Female characters in The Lord of the Rings'. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a matter of definition; as it happens, the commentators are totally relaxed about it, treating all female humanoids (if I may use that term for a moment) as representing real-world women, and calling them that explicitly, whatever Tolkien might have thought about it. For instance (ref 1) Wood writes "Tolkien is a male chauvinist, these critics charge, because he includes only a handful of women characters, and because he depicts these few women in highly idealized terms. Quite to the contrary, ... Tolkien's women are not plaster figures. Galadriel the elven princess ... So is Éowyn ... Though we see but little of Arwen, the elf-maiden ..." The point, if I may go so far as to say so - it'd be WP:OR in an article - is that the critics ignore any in-fiction distinctions because, whether they're against or for Tolkien, they are seeing the question as "Male Oxford Don vs Women" and whichever side they're on, the in-fiction "race" doesn't matter a hoot to them. And, frankly, nor should it on this matter. As for the proposed change, readers will in any case interpret "female characters" as "women", unless you're thinking of including the spiders Shelob and Ungoliant in that article, which would make it a very different topic. No, "women" is strong and right in this case, and extremely reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's clear to you about why using women in the title is right, but it needs be equally clear to others. The scope of the article needs to be clearly defined in the lead section—at present the title as it stands could be taken to mean it is generally about women in TLotR, or where sexism occurs, or a discussion of the different kinds of female characters, or even where females are missing entirely in the story. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of those things would be in scope if sources cover them, as they mostly do already. I've added a mention of possible sexism as that is indeed one of the themes of the article and of scholarly and critical comment. Happy to do some more wordsmithing in the lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks improved now.


 * Link 'the book’s theme of death and immortality’, not just the theme of death and immortality (and amend the sentence accordingly).
 * Done.


 * Link Tolkien in the infobox.
 * Done.


 * A minor point, but I would say “the only three major women characters”.
 * Hm, I feel that "the three" says that already.
 * OK.


 * I think the lead should be stronger in describing some commentators’ opinions—Łaszkiewicz correctly asserts that “J.R.R. Tolkien’s portrayal of females and femininity—particularly in The Lord of the Rings (1954- 55)—has long been the object of major criticism.”, but this is not really said in the lead.
 * Let's see if that works, then.


 * I'm not sure Context adequately describes the section.
 * Done: I'd say it was pretty direct, but 'Tolkien's background' is also fine by me.


 * Link British Army (capital A); batman (Batman (military)); Michael Tolkien (Tolkien_family); children's literature.
 * Done.


 * The hatnote should read ‘Further information…;.
 * Done.


 * ... the Inklings. - amend to something like ‘ ...which was known as the Inklings.’.
 * Done.


 * Among his influences, Tolkien… - I would amend this to ‘Among Tolkien’s influences, he…’, and link to ‘Tolkien’s influences’, not his influences.
 * Done.


 * Link ‘Henry Rider Haggard’, not Rider Haggard.
 * Done, through gritted teeth.


 * ..."Red Indians"… - is too contentious to use here (se WP:LABEL), even though everyone used to use the term once. Replace with ‘Native Americans’ (Native Americans in the United States ).
 * But that has quite a different sense. Tolkien stated that he liked (boy's adventure) stories about (exciting) "Red Indians", not activist tales about worthy minorities drinking themselves to death trapped in reservations. Since the phrase is a direct quotation from Tolkien himself in inverted commas, I'm afraid the PC brigade will just have to accept that it was spoken in another millennium, with a quite different weltanschauung. I've repeated the citation to make this clear; it is certainly part of his "background".
 * Of course, but so that readers see that the phrase comes from someone speaking decades ago, which at present it doesn't, I would use the source to make the quote longer, or perhaps leave it out, as it seems imo a bit off-topic. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. As usual, Tolkien comes out far more clearly, and with different emphasis, in his own words than when garbled by critics quoting critics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would consider unlinking sexist and feminist in the quote, as advised by MOS:LWQ.
 * Done.


 * Is Ref 2 (Jane Chance) needed?
 * We can manage without now.


 * Remove duplicate links Inklings; Hobbit; Dwarf.
 * Done.


 * Link Old English literature.
 * Done.


 * Who are Linda Voigts and Melissa McCrory Hatcher?
 * Voigts is already glossed at length in the section. Hatcher is glossed in 'Context'.
 * Understood.


 * Łaszkiewicz counts 11 women in the tale (on p. 11), worth a mention?
 * Done.


 * Remove duplicate links Éowyn; Arwen; Hobbits; feminists, Ents, hobbit (in servant-hobbit)
 * Done.


 * Who are Maureen Thum, Ann Basso, Weronika Łaszkiewicz and Brian Rosebury?
 * Glossed.


 * Link theologian.
 * Done.


 * I would consider unlinking courtly romance and numinous as the words are within a quote.
 * No, these need to be linked.


 * Basso writes “Close analysis of the text, however, reveals a roster of women whose characters are rich and diverse, well drawn, and worthy of Respect.”. Including this would go towards redressing what could be argued to be an overemphasis in the article on only three characters. Perhaps the article could be broadened discussing Goldberry more, perhaps using Łaszkiewicz and Basso (whose discussion of women in LotR I found the most interesting).
 * Included the quote.


 * Remove duplicate link Elf.
 * Done.


 * Who is David Craig?
 * Glossed.


 * Consider moving Circe Offering the Cup to Odysseus by John William Waterhouse, 1891 to the beginning of the caption.
 * Done.


 * The hatnote ‘Further information: Shelob’ hatnote is not approriate, as the subsection is not about her.
 * Done.


 * Phial of Galadrial shouldn’t be linked to 'Shelob', the link doesn't take you where you expect to go. I would amend the redirect.
 * Amended.


 * Two of the three subsections for Éowyn are only a single paragraph long. This section would read better if the subsections were edited out (see MOS:PARA).
 * Done.


 * The hatnote 'Further information: Women warriors in literature and culture’ is unnecessary, as the same link appears a line further down.
 * Done.


 * A single paragraph here starts to discuss the films. Jackson’s interpretation of the female characters in Tolkien's world (and the impact of his films on the debate about women in LofR), should imo be discussed in a separate section. I would find Łaszkiewicz useful here, especially when she discusses Arwen in the films, a character that gets little attention in this article.
 * Removed. The film thing is matter for a separate article.


 * Who is Melissa Hatcher?
 * She is already glossed, an author writing about LOTR in Mythlore, a scholarly journal.
 * Understood.


 * ... [Frodo Baggins]… - is not needed in the quote in order for it to understood. I wouldn't name Frodo in this way, because of the advice given by WP:OR.
 * Done.


 * Further information: Arwen is not needed, as the link already occurs three times elsewhere in the article.
 * Done.


 * The subsection titles here are followed by small paragraphs and should be removed.
 * Done.


 * Remove Main article: The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen: the text is not about Tolkien’s story, and the hatnote Template:Main is not used in this way.
 * Done.


 * The link immortal who voluntarily chooses mortality does not lead where you expect it to.
 * Done.


 * Link Humphrey Carpenter in Ref 7; Catharine R. Stimpson
 * Done both.


 * Ref 4 (Carpenter) – a url for the book is available at the Internet Archive ( https://archive.org/details/jrrtolkien00hump).
 * Done.


 * Ref 7 (Carpenter) has a url,https://archive.org/details/jrrtolkien00hump
 * Done.


 * Ref 10 (Stimpson) has a url, https://archive.org/details/jrrtolkien00stim
 * Done.


 * Ref 12 (Fredrick & McBride) has a url, https://books.google.co.uk/books? id=OeNZAAAAMAAJ&q=Women+Among+the+Inklings&dq=Women+Among+the+Inklings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbk5-pmJjsAhVDtnEKHfPSANcQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg
 * Done.


 * Ref 14 (Thum) has a url, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=irckAQAAMAAJ&dq=croft+%22tolkien+on+film%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=thum
 * Done.


 * Ref 15 (Enright) has a url that needs a subscription, https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-161502024/tolkien-s-females-and-the-defining-of-power
 * Done.


 * Ref 17 ( Carpenter & Tolkien) has a url, https://archive.org/details/jrrtolkien00hump
 * Done.


 * Ref 19 (Partridge) has a url, http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/documents/articles/No%20Sex%20Please.pdf
 * Done.


 * Ref 25 (Bassham) has a url, https://www.academia.edu/6132584/Tolkiens_Six_Keys_to_Happiness
 * Done.

On hold
The article was just as interesting to read up on and work through as i thought it would be, thanks in the main to your efforts. I'm putting it on hold for a week until 13 October to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed, but let me know if you think you will need longer. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the kind words. I think I've addressed everything now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Passing
Passing now, great job once again. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)