Talk:Beowulf and Middle-earth/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 08:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks like a good read. Happy to review it.

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Lead section

Old English is linked twice – the second link should go.

Gone.

I’m not convinced the image works for this article. See the images section in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Elements for specific guidance that leads me it might be better not to have an image at all.

Removed.

More comments to follow soon. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 Context

Dup link – Old English.

Fixed.

The first sentence is a mouthful - readers might be helped if it was broken into short sentences.

Done.

Looking at MOS:JOBTITLES, it seems that the Danish King should be ‘the Danish king’.

Fixed.

Kingdom of Rohan should, I think , be ‘kingdom of Rohan’.

Fixed.

"large symbolism" – I would mention of the author of this quote, to avoid it looking editorial.

It's already attributed, in quotation marks, and cited.

Unlink Christian (MOS:OL).

Done.

2 People

A circular hatnote! Why bother referring readers to a single paragraph of another article that itself refers them back again to the text they originally saw. I would delete it.

Gone.

2.1 A philologist's races

Dup link – Beowulf.

Gone.

Replace the Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey with ‘Shippey’ (unlinked).

Done.

I think the second sentence needs some work. The quote from Shippey, ("eotenas ond ylfe ond orcnéas, "ettens [giants] and elves and demon-corpses"") – has brackets (normally used to show where text is replaced, not as here), and links (normally avoided in a quote). It would be better to paraphrase the information in the quote, using text - see (MOS:QUOTE for where I am coming from).

I think the links are justified here to reduce obscurity and avoid repetition. I've removed the bracketed word.

Ref 7 is acceptable at GA, but any chance of providing specific pages here?

Done, though the page range was in fact all relevant.

The last sentence is imo too long, and would be better re-written using shorter sentences.

Done.

The caption quotes Shippey, but doesn’t explain: the document it comes from; that it's cropped from the bottom of a page; or that it's in the BL. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images. The whole page might be more interesting?

The image is specifically what is needed here. I've linked and labelled the MS, something that I personally find excessive to the point of clutter.

2.2 Characters

Link Mercian (Mercia).

Done.

I’m unclear why capitals are used in meant "Bear" but came to mean "Man, Warrior".

l/c.

between man and animal seems redundant and can be removed for the sake of conciseness.

Done, at the risk of introducing the question "to what?".

3 Monsters

Scholars have compared several of Tolkien's monsters, including his Trolls, Gollum, and Smaug, to those in Beowulf is redundant (as are the citations), as it's an introduction that only explains the text in the next three paragraphs.

Yes, but leading-in is helpful to many readers, and unreffed sentences, be they never so lead-in-ish, do get tagged in droves by a certain type of editor.

3.1 Trolls

Dup link – Grendel.

In the caption, Tolkien's wordless trolls should surely read ‘Tolkien's trolls’ (as they spoke well enough in The Hobbit).

Exception that proves the rule. Tolkien indeed regretted that outage. The text just below makes the comparison based on wordlessness, amongst other attributes.

I would improve the caption by amending it to ‘An illustration of Grendel, from Stories of Beowulf (1908). Tolkien's trolls have been compared with the monster.’.

Let's leave it, please, for brevity if nothing else. I doubt the book title will help anyone much, and people can find it with a click.

The illustration is from a 1908 children’s book, and I would reconsider its use, perhaps using this instead.

The images are only 2 years apart, and I must say I far prefer Skelton's suggestiveness to Bacon's bestiality.

Who is Christina Fawcett?

Glossed.

Link ‘Trolls in The Lord of the Rings’ (or perhaps ‘Middle-earth Trolls’) to Troll (Middle-earth), not Trolls.

Done.

Screaming." - the full stop follows the quote marks.

Done.

3.2 Gollum

Consider linking marshy.

Done.

a far smaller monster in Middle-earth is meaningless to readers unfamiliar with the character, and useless to those who know it well. It can it think be omitted.

No, because otherwise everyone who's seen the film or read the book will mentally object "but Gollum's a small monster...".

The last sentence doesn’t seem to work imo. Perhaps ‘The Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger suggests that Gollum, "the twisted, broken, outcast hobbit whose manlike shape and dragonlike greed combine both the Beowulf kinds of monster in one figure", is Tolkien's central monster-figure'.

Edited.

I’m not convinced about the table, see WP:WHENTABLE, which urges caution in their use. It might be better if the information was presented as prose, considering the number of empty boxes.

The table concisely presents a lot of information in a non-overwhelming way, in a small space and with few words. It also allows all 3 monsters to be compared directly. The same thing took Flieger 4 pages of text...

I'm more convinced now. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3.3 Smaug

Another circular hatnote?

Gone.

Laketown or Lake-town?

Hyphen it is.

I would amend Thorin to ‘Thorin Oakenshield’ (even though readers may be unaware of more than one character with this name).

Good idea given the context.

Consider amending Stuart D. Lee and Elizabeth Solopova analyse to ‘Scholars have analysed’.

Done.

4 Culture of Rohan

I’m unclear why this image and its caption are included, as the image seems to be purely decorative (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE).

Replaced it with the Rohan-specific image that was at the top, it works well down here.

4.1 Names and language

The last sentence is odd – why not discuss Kennedy’s analysis rather than state its existence here?

Removed.

More comments to follow. AM

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4.2 Heroic culture

Dup links – Heorot; Geats.

Gone.

Théoden's hall, Meduseld (the word means "mead hall" in Beowulf), is modelled on Beowulf's Heorot, as is the way it is guarded, visitors being repeatedly but courteously challenged. - needs to be copy edited, as it at present sounds confusing.

Edited.

Amend warhorns to ‘war horns’? (minor point)

Done.

The two references at the end of this sub-section need to be reversed in order.

Done.

4.3 Alliterative verse

Who is Mark Hall?

Glossed.

5.1 Impression of depth

Dup link – Beowulf.

Fixed.

5.2 Elegiac tone

Dup link - The Return of the King.

Gone.

Who is Patrice Hannon?

Glossed.

6 "Large symbolism"

Is the link within the quote needed? (see MOS:LWQ)

Gone. It depends on whether readers can be assumed to know what allegory is; the term's not otherwise mentioned.

Sorry—I know this article would be improved by using images—but the illustration here seems superfluous, merely illustrative.The caption would be better located within the text of the article.

OK, gone.

Dup link – Aragorn (twice)

Fixed.

As the link to good pagan is the Nine Worthies—two at least of of which were Catholic—the phrase the good pagan pre-Catholics seems rather strange.

Linked to #Pagans within that article.

The text makes it sound as if Aragorn was a Catholic.

A "good pagan pre-Catholic" rather, which in Flieger's view he was.

See my comment above about the table in the Gollum section, imo it also applies here.

See my reply above about the table in the Gollum section, imo it also applies here, a fortiori as the switched-over nature of Tolkien's weaving of the two types of hero-story is quite subtle, and in text takes Flieger over 20 pages of complicated explanation.

I might add that readers vary: some like a quick glance at a summary, some scan the images and captions, some like a long read, and some want clearly-presented facts and comparisons in tables. A combination is desirable, in my view.

7 Notes

Notes a and b could both be edited to make sentences.

Done.

8 References

Ref 2 (Luizza) - https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Beowulf/tp6m9vNWoXkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&d is available.

Added.

Ref 2 (Luizza) has a large page range, any chance of being more specific?

That's the range used by the article.

For the sake of consistency. Ref 17 (Sommerlad) should be cited in the References section.

There already.

9 Sources

Ref 11 (Hall) appears to be a self-published website – is it a reliable source?

Alaric Hall is a major scholar and an excellent communicator of matters Anglo-Saxon, too.

Similarly, Ref 12 (Fawcett) is a thesis, what makes you think is reliable?

It seems an extremely thorough, insightful, and well-thought-out PhD. Readers can of course judge the opinions for themselves.

Agreed, but Wikipedia doesn't like such excellent works...

Ref 15 (Nelson) is available here.

Ref 18 (Clark) is available here - I think the authors need to be checked.

Added the URL and author. Jonathan Evans is a professor of Medieval languages and literature at the University of Georgia.

All done this end. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 16 July to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. It's the most interesting LOTR article I've reviewed for you so far, and would make a great FA if you took it further. I've concurred with your replies, all of which make sense. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125 - all done this end. Many thanks for the review and for the kind words. Maybe I'll brave the dragons of FAC-land. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

Another one in the bag, congratulations. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]