Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morgan le Fay/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2018.

Morgan le Fay

 * Nominator(s): Atsme 📞 📧 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC), and User:SNAAAAKE!!

This article is about the enchantress Morgan le Fay as depicted in the Arthurian legend. Atsme 📞 📧 19:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1
Lead, cr. 1a: The lead needs tucking, trimming, simplifying, and clarifying.
 * "Early appearances of Morgan do not elaborate her character beyond her role as either a goddess, a fay or a sorceress,"—Isn't "or" enough? Do we need "either"?
 * "She became more important and morally ambivalent in other texts, in particular in cyclical prose such as the Lancelot-Grail and the Post-Vulgate Cycle, wherein she turns into a counter hero in a range of roles, including that of the antagonist in some tales."—First, what is more important than being a goddess? What does "important" mean here? Second, there are a few instances in the lead of starting, becoming, that I wonder about. "She was more important ..."? If she went through an overt process of becoming in these texts, it could be clarified in the wording. "she turns into" ... you mean during each of those texts, do you? And since magic is at issue, it sounds like the waving of a wand. "evolves to be"? I'm unsure. Third, "wherein"? Let's leave that to (klepto-) lawyers; so perhaps dump it while you split into two sentences.
 * "A significant aspect recurring in many of Morgan's medieval and later iterations"—convince me you need "recurring".
 * "with the potential for good as well as evil"—"with potential for both good and evil"
 * "local"—is that clear?
 * "gradually having been associated with"—another becoming phrase. Unsure what it means: in each of the stories? Over time?
 * "following" ... so you're introducing a list? "subsequent"? I don't understand the sentence.
 * "she is usually established as the youngest daughter of Arthur's mother"—why not "she is usually the"?
 * "Arthur, who is the son of Igraine and Uther, is Morgan's half-brother; Mordred's mother Morgause is one of her sisters." Who is Mordred???
 * "Morgan unhappily marries Urien with whom she has a son, Ywain."—Another comma required, probably.
 * "In this tradition"—this goes back to "versions", does it? Which tradition? (You don't write "In one tradition", so what does "this" back-refer to?) I'm confused. *Remove "also".
 * "... of his death; however, she eventually reconciles with her brother, and retains her original role of taking Arthur on his final journey to Avalon.," could be just "but". It's already a long sentence. Logic problem: retains means she had it all along.
 * "as she becomes an immortal queen of Avalon even within otherwise non-Arthurian stories, sometimes alongside Arthur." Unsure what "as" means. There's another "becomes". within -> in. "otherwise" is confusing, and so is "alongside" (in non-Arthurian stories?).
 * "Morgan's character became very prominent during the 20th and 21st centuries"—awkward temporally. "has been prominent since the ?early 20th century"?

Is the rest of the article better than this? Tony (talk)  02:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I should note that the nominator and I have had a number of productive personal exchanges on other issues. Just to emphasise: please treat this on a different planet from the personal! Thanks. Tony (talk)  07:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
Aside from the prose issues Tony notes in the lead alone, I can see several unsourced statements in the article -- these concerns, and the fact that the article appears to have had no prior community review, suggest it's been nominated prematurely, although I might wait to see another reviewer's opinion before considering an early close. Cheers, 05:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC
 * With regret, I agree with the coordinator. The article contains much excellent material, but is not ready for FAC. A basic consideration is what sort of English it is supposed to be in: at present it is a mixture of BrEng and AmEng – in a quick skim-through I spotted BrE "enamours", "symbolises", "rumours", "behaviour" and "favourites" alongside AmE "honor", "marvelous" and "savior". I also noticed, in passing, "Cisterian religious order", which is neither BrEng, AmEng or any kind of Eng. The referencing is haphazard: sometimes locations come before publisher's name, at other times after, and at other times not at all. ISBNs of published books are included or omitted seemingly at random, and I noticed one citation (67 – there may be others) where the book is identified but no page number is given, which is really not much help. After the article has had a thorough copy-editing and the references are dealt with it would be sensible to go to peer review and only then to FAC, in my view. –  Tim riley  talk   08:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the feedback. I hereby withdraw the nom. Atsme 📞📧 13:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.