Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dol Guldur/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 6 October 2008.

Dol Guldur

 * Nominator(s): Lord of Moria   Talk  Contribs

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets criteria. And looks really good. Lord of Moria  Talk  Contribs 17:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be negative right at the start, but the nomination statement is extremely feeble. There's nothing wrong with omitting it where there's nothing particularly useful to say. It won't have a bearing on the outcome, I assure you. It's mostly very well written. I spotted a few glitches, though. Passes 1a.
 * I apologise for the statement. I knew it was weak, I just didn't the like idea of not writing something in. Lord of Moria   Talk  Contribs 10:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Due to its location, situated just inside Mirkwood"—"location just" would remove the redundancy.
 * Done. Lord of Moria   Talk  Contribs 10:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to intervene, but what's been written now is: "Due to it being situated inside Mirkwood..." which is ugly. What was being suggested, I think, was: "Due to its situation inside Mirkwood..." I also removed a stray bracket from the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First map probably OK. Second map is high-res. Unsure, but I think a better, more explicit case should be made on the info page, and in relation to NFCC8 in the caption, which doesn't exist yet.
 * What do you mean by this? The map should be removed? I think it looks good and its interactive, provides many good links on it. Maybe the first one could stay as well? I won't mind removing it though and replacing it with a better one. Lord of Moria  Talk  Contribs 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reception: suddenly stub-paras. Perhaps they're necessary?
 * To make the article less in-universe is why they are like that. Lord of Moria   Talk  Contribs 10:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the article fails comprehensiveness and more research is required before the article gets to FA. Some specific problems: There's a long, long way to go yet!Davémon (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No real wp:notability suggested.
 * No sourced analysis from independant, third party, reliable sources.
 * Almost 90% in-universe,
 * Needs a real-world framework (based on literary criticism and literary biography):
 * When did Tolkien invent Dol Guldur?
 * What symbolism does Tolkien use to portray Dol Guldur?
 * How have critics approached Dol Guldur?
 * How is Dol Guldur significant to Tolkiens reputation as an author / success of the works / influence on popular culture?
 * etc.


 * Objection. I strongly disagree. I have found sources from many sites to say it is notable. What you have listed above is not possible or is at minimum false, why would anyone want to criticise Dol Guldur? It is a building. All information is listed there. We simply don't know "when" he created it - it seems tedious in the least and will seem too in-universe and not notable. Probably around the time he wrote the book is only guess. I have looked for "indepedant third party sources", books mentioning Dol Guldur are listed, John Howe has drawn illustrations of it, all information is mentioned in Appendix B of the Lord of the Rings, which is also mentioned. It isn't "90% in-universe". I mean look at Flood (Halo) is it "in-universe". Furthermore we have already listed it as being notable: this is where Sauron rebuilt his strength and set out to look for the one ring. Lord of Moria   Talk  Contribs 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOTRrules - Davemon has a strong point. It would benefit your article if you could find any information on what Tolkien did to create this area. Anything special, ideas he based it on, similarities to medieval fiction or real world places, etc. When does it first appear in fiction? Why does it first appear in fiction? Etc. Try to come up with a few paragraphs on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) Notability must be established outside the story. Dol Guldur is an element of fiction, and as such critics will have something to say about its role in that fiction. As for when it was created - this is highly significant to literary biography. The whole transformation of Tol-in-Gaurhoth to Dol Guldur illuminates Tolkiens creative processes. All of this citable from The History of Middle-earth and the History of the Hobbit. --Davémon (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I don't often oppose on sourcing, but this one clearly fails the comprehensive guideline, because there is no evidence that several sources have been consulted. Specifically, there is no information from the Book of Lost Tales works, which would be important for the development of the location. Note that there are 805 books listed at Amazon when you search for Middle-Earth and Tolkien, have any of those works been consulted?
 * Current ref 26 (Rutledge, Fleming) is a book, not a website, and should be formatted as such, because I'm assuming that you've read the whole book, not just Google snippets, so that you have the whole context.
 * What makes http://www.tuckborough.net/ a reliable source?
 * Current ref 41 (MERP) is lacking last access date and publisher at the very least.
 * What makes http://www.xbox360achievements.org/guide.php?type=Retail&gameID=74 a reliable source?
 * I have to say there is a distinct lack of third-party sources on this article. This is Tolkien, there will be scholarly discussions of the location. There is also a lack of using the Book of Lost Tales, or other published works by Tolkien's estate.
 * Otherwise sources look fine, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I'm disappointed to see that my comments on the talk page from June have yet to be addressed. I didn't believe that the article was GA material then, and I still doubt it.  The fundamental problem with this article is that it does not adhere to WP:WAF; it contains far too much in-universe details and not enough real-world context.  Where is the critical analysis?  Where is the notability in literature established?  The "Reception" section isn't what the header suggests; it's a list of portrayals in the media, so the header is misleading.  That is the only section that doesn't contain solely plot details.  Also, most of the sources are primary sources, from Tolkien's work -- this does not satisfy WP:RS.  I just don't see how this article has improved since its hasty promotion to GA.  María ( habla  con migo ) 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is an article about a minor feature of a (major) work of fiction. As such, it is not likely ever to acquire enough information to warrant becoming a Featured Article.  As LOTRrules notes, there's not a lot written about it, either in universe or out (though he has not mined all the available sources).  The article has improved significantly since being given Good Article status (which was clearly premature), and many (but not all) of the fan references have been replaced with more authoritative ones (and regardless what WP:RS says, there is no more authoritative source about in-universe details than Tolkien himself).  [And this does serve a useful purpose:  one of the reasons the WP Tolkien articles are so popular is that they have become fairly trustworthy sources of information in light of the story's mangling by the films.]  But the basic objection that there is little here in the way of development is just (and in my opinion not likely to change); and even some of the in-universe material (specifically the section on "Culture" -- not exactly an appropriate heading) is not entirely accurate.  (Disclaimer: I have worked on this article.) Elphion (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Entirely disagree that this subject cannot become FA-worthy, although it might be relatively obscure, there is no reason it can't fulfill the FA criteria. As an aside - may I ask how are you measuring the popularity of the WP Tolkien articles? Davémon (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article looks good and is well written, however I have to agree that it really needs more real-world content before becoming an FA.  Xan  dar  10:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically what if there is no criticism that anyones written? Lord of Moria  Talk  Contribs 16:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.