Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Lord of the Rings

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Lord of the Rings

[edit]

This article has been peer review twice, both this year, with the later being at my request. They can be found here and here. I have since made every change and imrpoved many other parts of the article. It covers the topic in every detail and is well-referenced. It also meets all MoS requirements and has generally great prose. If there are still problems with the article, no matter how minor, please note them here so I can improve the article further. Thanks, SorryGuy 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article has 43KB of prose as of 1 June 2006
Done. -- Avenue 01:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!RN 02:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - 66kb is much too long - 32kb is the recommended maximum size for an article; there are links in section headings, contrary to the MOS; some section heading capitalisations also contravene the MOS; the pop culture section consists only of a stubby paragraph and a short list; the arrangement of the article is poor - why is 'back story' first, before it's even been set out that this was a book by Tolkein? What's a 'back story' in any case? In large chunks of text there are no citations, with sentences such as He thought about using Bilbo's son but this generated some difficult questions — Where was his wife? How could Bilbo let his son go into that kind of danger? — so he looked for an alternate character to carry the ring crying out for them; there is also a 'citation needed' in the critical response section. Worldtraveller 01:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with the size requirement here - I was thinking some of the exact same things Worldtraveller was - especially regarding references. RN 01:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will address each of your statements here: 1) The size is a rough guideline and not a requirement. Lord of the Rings happens to be a very wide topic to cover, as shown in the artcle and most of the information need be there to cover the topic well. In addition I do not believe it is possible to cut half of this article and retain any sort of cohertness. 2) However the section links to the larger article which covers the topic in great detail. Adding more seems to contradict your above objection. 3) The back story is first because without it it is impossible to summarize the books. The summary is first because that is the information many will seek first when looking for information on Lord of the Rings. As for Tolkien writing the books that is established multiple times in the lead. At any rate I am open to suggestions, what order would you prefer? 4) As for the two references I will find them and add them. 5) The titles are quick fixs that I will do right now. At any rate I thank you for your suggestions and hope that correcting them can improve the article. Assuming all of them are completed you will change your vote to a support, yes? SorryGuy 02:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, 32kb is a rough guideline but more than doubling it is just ignoring it entirely. Sure, there's a lot to cover but the skill is covering it in as concise a way as possible. The longer your article, the fewer readers will bother reading all the way to the end, and that's a shame. As for organisation, the lead should be a concise summary of the article rather than an introduction to it, so the beginning of the main article should not follow on from the lead. You really need an 'overview' section or something like that before launching into 'back story' (a term which I'm not sure is widely used in any case).
    • Of course I would support if my objections are addressed. Why wouldn't I? Worldtraveller 00:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WorldTraveller about the MOS for section headings but I disagree that the article is too large; it's appropriate for the topic. savidan(talk)(e@) 04:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you talk about is *only* concerned about the size of the *prose* in an article. Things like references (esp inline ones), external links, see alsos and tables bloat the page size while not affecting the all-important size of the prose. Summary style further states that the *starting point* where an article may be considered too long is about 30KB and the likelihood of being too long goes up with size until one reaches 50KB of prose; only a small handful of topics require that much prose and vanishing few need more than that. What drives the need and/or ability to take more space than 30KB of prose? The scope of the topic and quality of the writing. This article has 43KB of prose and is about a huge work of fiction that has had a very dramatic impact on culture and even a bit on society itself. So the scope of this topic alone warrants going over 30KB. Whether or not the writing is also brilliant enough to warrant the extra reading time is up to debate though; we must be extra careful to ensure writing is engaging when going above 30KB of prose. --mav 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support on the article size yet I am a little confused. I thought the problem with the titles were the wikified parts and the capitalization on second words and the like. I have since correct those. Are there addition problems that I am missing? SorryGuy 05:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose for now. This is a well-written and seemingly comprehensive article. However the whole section on Adaptations seems overly long to me. Each of its sub-sections does a thorough job, but the effect is to overwhelm the general reader with details that don't really relate to the books or the saga. I feel that some of this detail would be better shifted to separate articles, leaving a much more tightly summarised version, perhaps more like Romeo_and_Juliet#Adaptations. Less importantly, there seem to be a few minor inconsistencies or typographical problems (e.g. should it be Hobbits or hobbits). Also, the description of The Two Towers seemed unclear about the parallel stories, initially suggesting these covered the Rohan/Saruman angles. -- Avenue 02:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While the article has improved, I think it hasn't reached featured article quality quite yet. The Adaptations section still needs much more cutting; the quotation of Lifeline Theatre's mission statement is one of the clearest examples, along with most of the second paragraph of the "Strategy battle game" subsection, but there is some fat in other areas too. I also agree with several comments made by others: launching directly into the back story does seem a bit abrupt, maps would be very useful, and more citations are needed. On maps, the current map seems poorly labelled - the labels are too small to read easily, and it shows "The Great River" while the article mentions the River Anduin. The names shown generally seem more appropriate to the LOTR synopsis than the back story where it currently resides. Would it be appropriate to show this map of Numenor first, and shift the Middle-Earth map further down? The Middle-Earth map might also benefit from being more tightly cropped. -- Avenue 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will take another look at adaptations and see what I can cut. The map currently in use is actually rather large and detailed once you see it at its full size. This of coarse is impossible in the article. However the addition of the other, assuming that its copyright status is fine, can be added. As for the synopsis I have said on the talk page that I would prefer to not do it as my knowledge of story is far from being as extentsive as others. If anyone reading this can improve it, please do. I will do my best to get rid of the backstory and combine it but some may need to be added back. At any rate thanks for the suggestions, SorryGuy 16:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Adaptations section is much improved, and although I don't like some of it (e.g. a messy start to the films subsection; excessive detail and poor writing about the Cincinnati productions), I would probably not oppose if these were the only problems present. But the lack of citations is still worrying, and the capitalization, map labeling, and back story abruptness problems remain. The changes to the preamble haven't solved the back story issue, IMO. A better solution might be to turn "Back Story" and "Synopsis" into subsections of a larger section, and explain the need for background before launching into the back story. More generally I suspect the article size could be cut significantly by tightening up the prose, without losing anything of substance; see Tony's comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States for an example. -- Avenue 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My criticisms of the Adaptations section have been addressed. However the other problems remain. The lack of citations is the biggest issue (see the comments by Worldtraveller and Mike Christie for details), and the capitalisation problems have got worse since I first commented. This is a very good article, IMO, but it's not featured quality yet. -- Avenue 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what you mean about capitalization? Do you mean the hobbits/Hobbits? If so please check the talk page of the article. The capitalizations have signifiance, as explained by Tolkien. SorryGuy 02:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do mean the hobbit/Hobbit distinction in particular, as discussed here Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Hobbit_or_hobbit? and here Talk:The_Lord_of_the_Rings#Beware Hobbit/hobbit capitalisation. The article does not reflect the talk page consensus yet, as I understand it. For example, when the article says "The Hobbits also learn...", "...the fun-loving Hobbit...", and "...so the Hobbit Frodo came into existence", these all refer to a particular hobbit or hobbits, and so should be lower case. -- Avenue 03:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to look up Gandalf's quote about Gollum coming from a race "not unlike hobbits", to see if I could give a citation. So far I haven't found the phrase in LOTR, although Gandalf does say of Gollum's people that "I guess they were of hobbit-kind; akin to the fathers of the fathers of the Stoors" (The Fellowship of the Ring, 62). This is also widely referenced on the web, e.g. [1]. Googling only yields one non-Wikipedia LOTR-related reference for "not unlike hobbits", in a review of one of Jackson's films - perhaps that's the source? Can anyone shed more light on this? -- Avenue 14:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, you are correct that it is from the movies. I have not checked if you change it or not but if not I will do so. Nice find, thank you. SorryGuy 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and cited. -- Avenue 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The recent attention to citations has greatly improved the article, and I fixed the capitalisation problems I was aware of. The abruptness and length of the back story are the main reason I'm still opposing FA status, although I've moderated this to "weak oppose". I think the Middle-Earth map could also be improved, but that's not necessary for me to support. -- Avenue 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The backstory needs to be worked on, I agree. I will do my best although I am unsure how well that will work out. The aburptness concerns I am unsure how to address though. The lead seems to cover the overview well and give the readers an idea what to expect. May I misunderstand but my logics says that the story that the whole article is about should follow next. Do you think that you could link to a few articles which are what you are looking for? I would prefer they be featured but anything to give me the picture would be great. Thanks, SorryGuy 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it might be a good idea to have the map of middle earth in the Synopsis section. This section talks about many different places and for the uninitiated those places mean very little without a map. Just my 2 cents. Witty lama 05:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I agree with World Traveller on the size issue. The text can be easily summarised. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems odd that in the Dramatic productions the most recent events comes first, while in the films and games sections the oldest events comes first. --Peter Andersen 10:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article is excellent proof that a good article about a copyrighted work does not need excessive amounts of "fair use" images. Well done! Angr (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article starts off by stating that it's about the book, but devotes an enormous amount of space discussing video games and the movies. I'd suggest cutting the Adaptations section and using it as the basis of a new article. That would help to keep this article on topic and also solves the length issue. --NormanEinstein 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis of size issue. The size being a guideline is OK, but this is way too long. Also, I think a lot of paragraphs can be merged as short paragraphs break the flow. Date linking is not consistantly followed. (One out of FAC querry: Should we wikilink dates at all for dates in Third Age). Please also fix the unsourced statement issue. A "Well done" from me too per User:Angr. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Support as size issue seems to have been handled well. BTW there is no such word as "nicer" (as used in the article). Also, the use of word "nice" is frowned upon as it means that the person doesn't know what is being talked about(ref). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.Weak support. This is a fine article, and I think it is approaching FA quality. However, I agree with others that it is too long. You've already cut the section on games; I think that could lose a little more, given the existence of a separate article. I also agree that the first section after the lead, "Back Story", is a little disconcerting; as a section it is fine, but I think it needs prior text saying something like "Tolkien began work on the book in 19(whenever) and worked on it etc."; in other words, approach the book a little more historically, and don't just jump into the fictional context. I'd also suggest cutting the backstory somewhat; it is well covered elsewhere in WP and I think mentioning Ar-Pharazon e.g. is more than is needed at this level. The details on publication history are excellent; and overall the article strikes a good balance in covering different aspects of the book. One area that could do with expansion (possibly even to the point of a separate article) is the "Influences on the fantasy genre" section; LotR's influence of course has been phenomenal, and this is something that would be good to spend a few more words on. Finally, there are a couple of places where a reference would be good. Examples: in "Influences", "widespread speculation that the One Ring was an allegory for the nuclear bomb"; I agree, but for FA you should have one cite at least, and preferably two to bolster "widespread". Next para: "Tolkien states in the introduction": that should be easy to cite, and would be good to have the exact reference. Next para: "contemporary anxieties"; I certainly would support this, on the basis of writings like "Tree and Leaf" if nothing else, but is there a good quote from an interview? And then the reference to Sigurd the Volsung; again this is plausible but is this speculation or is there supporting evidence? And so on. This is a very good article; good luck on getting it to FA. Mike Christie 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck out comments that I think have been addressed, if not to my complete satisfaction then at least to the point of qualifying for FA. I still have the concerns about references. Mike Christie 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed to weak support. The main reason for the "weak" modifier is that I understand from SorryGuy that some of the print references have been done from memory. Knowing what I do about the sources, I believe the references, but I would like to see someone with a hardcopy put in page references. Other than that, the article is now well-referenced. I agree with some comments above that some wording improvement could be done, but I now support FA. Mike Christie 04:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Update: I have been doing some work with creating new article and being more concise with wordings with most of my work focused on the adaptations. As a result I have cut about 10KB from the article and overall I feel that nothing has been lost. I have more additions to make though and will need to do more cutting. As a result I was wondering what those of you objecting on the basis of lenght would like to see the article get to. I realize 32KB is the recommendation however I find it unlikely for an article of this scope. I feel that 50KB would be fair but would like some input on this. SorryGuy 05:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well done for trimming it this much. I wouldn't like to give a specific figure to aim for but the smaller the better really. If you can keep it under 50kb that's reasonable, though still longer than I would prefer. Put yourself in the position of a reader who's curious but doesn't know anything about LOTR at all - I think 50kb and beyond is the territory in which, for most subjects, such a reader will probably want something more concise. Most of the FAs I've written are between 20 and 30kb; Mercury is 35kb, Hubble Space Telescope is 60kb but was 51kb when it became an FA so I'm off there now to see if I can edit it back down... Worldtraveller 09:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My long-standing concerns from the peer review about the overemphasis of adaptations have finally been addressed, so I can now support. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:06 UTC
  • Oppose Comments strike my oppose and change to comment - I am now too involved with editing to support or oppose Carcharoth 12:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC) - I'll list a few points that I would want to see addressed before even considering supporting it:[reply]
    • Intro - "written during World War II" - this is misleading as the writing started in 1937 (as the writing section makes clear). Most of it was written during World War II, but it was not properly finished until 1949, again, as the later section makes clear.
    • Intro - the introduction does not do an adequate job of summarising the article, in my opinion. There seems little reasoning behind what is in the intro - it could say much more about the publication history, rather than the films. Also, the links in the intro lead to the Jackson films, but not to the articles about the other films - ie. lack of correct linking here.
    • Back story - I would cut this entirely, or integrate it with the synopsis. I also agree that the order is not good here. Start with a small synopsis and then go straight into the publication history.
    • Other - While reading the rest of the article, I spotted many other things. These are probably best addressed elsewhere, on the talk page, or I may just dive straight in and edit the article. One bit that caught my eye was: "The books have been translated, with various degrees of success, into dozens of other languages." - which languages? At least some of them should be mentioned.
    • Overall, I think this article still needs more work done on it. It needs to be made more coherent and have more quotes supporting the statements made in the article. Several of the sections need rewriting as well. Carcharoth 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Carcharoth has attempted to resolve the issue of the article going straight to story by adding much more content to the lead. However the lead now has more paragraphs than suggested by WP:LEAD. Which is better and does the current verison entice those currently opposing to support? I will contact those of you opposing because of that to discuss it on here or the article's talk page. For those of you just voting please note that we are current discussing this. Thanks, SorryGuy 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support good job. igordebraga ≠ 16:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support - so long as my section changes stay, I can see a couple of superficial problems. The "themes" section needs desperately to be prosified: it's a very ugly list. The "Publication history" section looks very messy - can something be done about those lists? Finally, something needs to be done about the disambig at the top - it's not just about the books. Otherwise, really good job :). — Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Please contact me on my talkpage to ask me to have another look: I won't be watchlisting this page. — Celestianpower háblame 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may not read this yet I still believe I should respond. The seperation of Critical Responce and Polls was as recent as two days and still not decide. The same goes for the Themes. It was a recent addition which most of us on the talk page have agreed can be cut. As for the publication history and disambig I can see what I can do about it tommorow. As usual thanks for the comments. SorryGuy 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll discuss the disambig on the talk page. I'm slightly surprised to see someone say they will support a nomination "as long as my [...] changes stay". That doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia is about: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly [...] do not submit it." I would qualify that with at least being prepared to discuss things and reach consensus. Carcharoth 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree, and of course they will be, and obviously I welcome this. My point (badly expressed) was that I thought that the TOC was too long, so I endevoured to fix it. If a better solution can be reached, I'm all for it. — Celestianpower háblame 10:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Strong prose and enough information. Felixboy 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support Article seems fineAnonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good article, has cites, has quality content. Rrpbgeek 19:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support As per above. JONJONAUG 14:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, good structure, citations.--Aldux 22:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object The first reference is about a fifth of the way down the page, which leaves quite a lot of unsourced info. And the books aren't even cited! And the animated film section lacks a ref about the company thinking of it as a flop. Not well enough referenced. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is to one of the books. Would you be able to add {{ME-fact}} to anything else you think needs a reference? Also, the lead section is not referenced because it is a summary of the article - the references should appear in the parts of the article that were used to create the summary. This is a common style, if not yet widely accepted. If you spot parts of the lead section that do not have corresponding text and references later in the article, it would be great if you could point that out. Carcharoth 11:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a few comments (in my "Oppose" paragraph, above) about specific areas in the text that I feel could use citations. If you would like me to add some {{ME-fact}} notes I would be happy to do so; let me know either here or (preferably) on my talk page. Mike Christie 15:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some, in the intro and animated film area, which is enough to contend with. Sorry if it's a mess, I'm tired. Some of the intro is kinda dodgy, the media paragraph isn't brilliant prose at all, and the animated film section (the Hobbit) is somewhat stubbish). I've left a note in the intro about original research too, it's hidden. Regards, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    After the removal of a statement, the rewrting of several and the addition of many references no sections now contain ME-fact. If there are more needed please let me know, I have found a great source in National Geographic that is citable for alot of this. Besides the citations I am going to begin to attempt to start and cut some of the excess material again. Let me know if there is anything else. SorryGuy 03:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support Fill in most of the missing citations in the writing section, then contact me on my talk page, and I'll change the conditional part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by False Prophet (talk • contribs) .
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Lord_of_the_Rings&oldid=1138473330"