Talk:Ent

Ent has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 7, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Middle-earth High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Treant was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 January 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ent. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ent/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 22:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I'll review this article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
One or two minor points of correction, which will be outlined below.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction (N/A), and list incorporation (N/A):
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Almost completely.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Should only be a short hold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

All Tolkien references appear to be accurate.
- Noted.

Spotcheck of accessible sources:
- 3 - good
- 6 - good
- 7 - good
- 8 - good
- 9 - good
- is 15 really necessary?
  - Removed.
- 16 (Screen Rant): while listed as a marginally reliable source at WP:RSP, the link does not provide any evidence of the Groot character being linked to Tolkien.
  - Removed.

Most images are fine. Is File:Twisted Plumeria tree trunk overgrowing the steep stone stairs of Wat Phou temple, Champasak, Laos.jpg really necessary? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- To my eye the image supports the text and caption well.

Other issues

"Treebeard, who (credibly) claims to be the oldest creature in Middle-earth" does Treebeard actually ever claim to be the oldest? Or is he just called such by Gandalf and Celeborn? See [1].
- Yes, they call him that. Fixed.

Is there any analysis available linking Ents to the folklore mentioned (Dryads, Germanic groves, etc.)? Such as the David Day source?
- Removed the mention.
"Treebeard boasted of their strength to Merry and Pippin; he said that Ents were much more powerful than Trolls, which Morgoth made in the First Age in mockery of Ents, as orcs were of elves"." there's a quotation mark at the end, but none preceding it.
- Removed.
Could the description be made a subsection of the Internal history section? I feel like that would work better.
- - Done.
- If so, you could incorporate some of the material from the passage beginning 'Ents are an old race...' into the First Age subsection.
  - Done, and removed the overlap.
I don't think the Erchamion is necessary.
- Gone.
"Samwise Gamgee mentions his" --> mentions that
- Added.
I assume the closing bracket after the Great Sea quotation was a typo.
- Removed.
Could the "Ent-like creatures" subsection be renamed to 'cultural derivations' or similar? I feel that that better represents the contents. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.

Nice! Promoting now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth making mention of Cad Goddeu as a possible source of inspiration? I don't know if Token ever mentioned it but I'd be surprised if Tolkien hadn't read some of the book of Taliesin. Even if, if he did draw on it as a source of inspiration, he used it with some different themes attached. Thedirefulspring (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]