Talk:Smith of Wootton Major

Untitled

I improved this a little, mostly to make people aware of the new edition with its fuller explanation of just what is going on.

I moved up the descriptive portions, my own and the existing material, so that they are all together.

The plot summary needs improving, but I do not have the book to hand. All I did was to correct the statement that Nokes was punished, which is not accurate and is contrary to Tolkien's feelings in the matter. Nokes has some good aspirations, even if his understanding is often poor.

Some illustrations would be useful, if they could be obtained without breach of copyright.

--GwydionM 21:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No longer a 'stub'?

What's the definition? I'd have thought it was now large enough to qualify as 'regular'. --GwydionM 18:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi, I put in an infobox, but it's incomplete. We need the number of pages, and a cover image. --Kjoonlee 03:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If we can't find a cover image for the first UK edition, I think a newer edition image would be OK if we use an image caption to point that out. --Kjoonlee 05:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio Adaptation

Wasn't there a BBC Radio adaptation of "Smith of Wootton Major" at one point? 176.61.97.121 (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'd like to take up this review, along with Farmer Giles of Ham. I should be able to get through both either tomorrow or overmorrow :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No plagiarism (phew!), OR, etc. Ref section looks good to me.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Every edit for a while has been Chiswick Chap, so hopefully you're not having an edit war with yourself...

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All non-free content is properly tagged; captions are fine

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Chiswick Chap: - I'm really sorry, but I'm going to have to quickfail this review, due to the entire Plot Summary section being plagiarism of this website. Plagiarism was introduced in rev 209751380 by User:Elphion. I'll submit the article for a revdel. This is such a shame, the rest of the article was looking good.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I should add, please renom it! The article is definitely up to scratch.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Frzzl, Elphion certainly did NOT copy from that site, so the copyying must be in the other direction. Here's why. Elphion made this edit at 18:53 on 2 May 2008, which consisted of a series of small copy-edits, e.g. he changed "...Wootton Major is well-known..." to "Wootton ...Major was well-known..." and so on throughout the section; and the other website has the text WITH Elphion's copy-edits included. So we do not have a copyvio in Smith of Wootton Major, nor any reason to worry here about this GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

For posterity, this was a mistake on my part - for proceedings, see the talk page, and my talk page. The review'll continue. -  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Points

Alright, state of the review is that the article is in good shape, and all that's left is a prose review and spotchecks (I did the rest before I found the non-copyvio). Points coming below.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• Can we put something like "American scholar" before Verlyn Flieger? To show her relevance to it.
  • Done.

Background

• remove "famous"
  • Done.

Analysis

• I know you linked to Leaf by Niggle in the hatnote, but can you put a few words of who that is in the sentence for context/uninformed reader?
  • Added.

• Link Tolkien studies
  • Linked.

• Redlink Jonathan Evans (academic), he seems worthy of an article, likewise for Martin Sternberg
  • Linked both.

• Eärendil, and Ælfwine-Eriol "and of course Tolkien... -> Eärendil, Ælfwine-Eriol, "and of course Tolkien... better integrates the quote into the prose.
  • Done.

• "She states at once" -> "at once" should be removed, is superfluous and unnecessarily complicates the phrase
  • Removed.

• What do you think about "his own poem" -> "his own poem itself"? imo adds a bit of clarity
  • Um, no, I don't think that helps.
    • Fine by me - F

• "Whatever the case" perhaps sounds a little glib? Maybe replace with "nevertheless" or "still," or something of the sort.
  • Reworded.

Other

• External links section needs a quick polish - the second link is dead, it would be nice if the first had a short sentence about its provenance.
  • Done.

Spotchecks coming soon!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

4 of the sources are open access as of rev 1170895114 (4, 5, 9, and 12), so I've checked all uses of them - all seems fine there in terms of accuracy, but two points below:

• Secondary source 4 (Pauline Baynes) is linked to the article for source 5, not the paper! - The DOI linked to a paper, which looks like the correct thing haha; can you add the page number (44) to the citation?
  • Ref 4's URL and DOI link to the same thing, Hasirci 2021; added the page number.

• Speaking of source 5, it's a blog written by collectors of Baynes' work - is this a reliable source?
  • Hammond and Scull are not book collectors but extremely experienced Tolkien scholars who have researched and written major works including the 2,300 page The J. R. R. Tolkien Companion and Guide. So, yes, we can rely on them.

I want to ask for some quotations for some of the offline sources - can you give me the following:

• Full sentence for secondary ref 6
  • Defeat hangs heavy in Smith of Wootton Major. Smith has to hand over his star, and return to Faërie no more..."

• First and fifth uses of the Flieger "Pitfalls in Faerie"
  • "There is some validity in both the autobiographical and the allegorical elements that are genuinely to be found for those who seek them; nevertheless, neither accounts for the story's gossamer appeal. It must be conceded, however, that to some extent it invites reading as allegory and that Tolkien is in part responsible."
  • "If "The Sea-bell" can be read as—on one level, at least—Tolkien's corrective to Mary Rose, then Smith of Wootton Major might well be seen as a kind of corrective to "The Sea-bell", sweetening the bitterness of the pain and gently balancing this loss with renewed appreciation for the things of this world."

@Chiswick Chap: - pinging you in case you haven’t seen these, since you’ve been onwiki today. Do you have access to these sources?  Frzzl  talk; contribs  17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

apologies, didn’t see that you fixed them. Thanks for adding author-links to Scull and Hammond.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's everything now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

OK then, I’m happy with the article; I’m ok mobile atm, so I shall pass it later this evening. Thank you for putting up with me!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  18:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The "Plot summary" text here is certainly not a copyvio

Elphion certainly did NOT copy from the site you named, so the copyying must be in the other direction. Here's why. Elphion made this edit at 18:53 on 2 May 2008, which consisted of a series of small copy-edits, e.g. he changed "...Wootton Major is well-known..." to "Wootton ...Major was well-known..." and so on throughout the section; and the other website has the text WITH Elphion's copy-edits included. So we do not have a copyvio in Smith of Wootton Major. The "Plot summary" text was constructed in numerous stages by Wikipedia editors, so the text is properly licensed. ~~

OK, I'm fine accepting that. Due to the URL of the website having the date 2005/10 in it, before those edits took place, I thought that the original text was a close paraphrasing of the text on that website, which Elphion updated to be the original text. None of the other texts on the site seemed to be sourced from Wikipedia/plagiarised without sourcing, and there weren't any archive links to it. Anyway, doesn't matter now.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah sorry, was having dinner, just seen your comments on my talk page. Yeah, let's get on with the review.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  19:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)