Talk:Tuor and Idril/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article should be written in the present tense per MOS:WAF.
  • Fixed.
    • A few instances of the past tense remain: they became the ancestors,
      • Fixed.
    • the Evening Star was not in the western sky that Tuor saw,
      • This is correct in the scholarly analysis, or we'd have to jump between tenses.
    • Idril had a premonition of impending danger and like Helen, her beauty played a major role in instigating Maeglin's betrayal of Gondolin, which ultimately led to its downfall and ruin. Conversely, Greeman notes that Idril's advice to enact a contingency plan for a secret escape route out of Gondolin was heeded by her people, and that she had always rejected Maeglin's advances and remained faithful to Tuor,
      • Again, this is correct in the scholarly analysis, where the rule about describing the main narrative does not apply: we are describing the scholar looking back at Tolkien's and other texts.
    • the name Idril was a form of the Quenya name. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Fixed.

Lead

• The infoboxes give the "Race" as "Men" and "Elf", respectively. Use either singular or plural for both.

• Done.

• Eldarin Elves – I daresay just "Elves" will do fine.

• Done.

• Commentators have compared – is "commentators" the best word to use here?

• Edited.

• I would link Greek mythology and Roman mythology.

• Done.

Etymology

• The use of single and double quotation marks seems inconsistent.
  • Fixed.
    • There are still a couple of instances of single quotation marks: Ulmondil or 'The Blessed of Ulmo' and The epithet Celebrindal means 'Silverfoot'. Similar cases such as the ship Eärramë ("Sea-wing") and Itarillë, Itarildë, or Itaril, meaning "sparkling brilliance" us double quotation marks. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Fixed.

• I would at least link Christopher Tolkien, maybe also gloss.

• Now linked in an earlier section as this one has been moved, see last item in this section.

• This is also present – I might clarify what "This" refers to (is it the "silver foot" theme, or the broad strokes of the description more generally, or something else?)

• Edited.

• Is there nothing to say of Tuor's etymology?

• We can look up the parts of his name in the Etymologies but that seems rather OR-ish really. I've merged the section with 'Idril'.

Fictional history

• In general, this section is rather dense with somewhat esoteric terminology (mainly names of places and characters) that makes it difficult to understand for readers not already familiar with the material.
  • Reworded and glossed some more, and reduced the use of Sindarin names. There are numerous wikilinks and a map to help readers.
    • Much, much better. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA72 in the Thomas reference for ease of verification.

• Noted.

• in the First Age – maybe "of Middle-earth"?

• Done.

• in the Nírnaeth Arnoediad – I know this is a battle rather than a location, but I suspect many readers won't. I would gloss.

• Done, in fact named the battle in English.

• dying upon the Haudh-en-Ndengin – gloss. Not clear from context if this refers to a location or e.g. a date ("upon the Ides of March" or similar).

• Fixed.

• by Morgoth – maybe "by the Dark Lord Morgoth", for context?

• Done.

• escape from Dor-lómin – this is the first mention of Dor-lómin, so it should probably be glossed.

• Done.

• Vala of Waters – I might say "the divine Vala" or "the godlike Vala" for context.

• Done.

• whose mother Elenwë died during the crossing of the Helcaraxë – I know what the crossing of the Helcaraxë is. Many will not.

• Reworded.

• This was the second union between the Elves and Men. – I feel like this sentence should immediately precede the sentence "In contrast to the first union of Elves and Men [...]".

• Removed.

• the Children of Ilúvatar – neither Ilúvatar nor the Children of Ilúvatar have been mentioned prior, so this needs to be glossed.

• Done.

• Having noticed Maeglin's suspicious behaviour, who said nothing about his encounter with Morgoth and his servants upon his return, Idril decided to construct a secret passage out of Gondolin, known as Idril's Secret Way. During the sack of Gondolin, Tuor defended Idril and their only child Eärendil from Orcs and the traitorous Maeglin, who was promised both Gondolin and Idril by Morgoth in return for the location of the hidden city and threatened to murder the child by throwing him over the edge of the city wall. – I would really try to mention the events in the order they happen, i.e. Morgoth's promise followed by Maeglin's return followed by Idril noticing something is off and so on. It might help to use somewhat shorter sentences.

• Reworded and rearranged.

• it was a tradition under the Eldar and Edain – "it was a tradition"?

• Reworded.

• bypassing the Ban of the Valar – I would add "that prohibited mortals from entering the Undying Lands" or something along those lines.

• Good idea, done.

• their descendant Aragorn – probably link Aragorn.

• Done.

• I would mention that the stuff about Aragorn relates to the events of The Lord of the Rings.

• Done.

• How come the Loback illustrations have different licenses?
  • Long before my time. The Wedding image was uploaded in 2007 by Loback; he gave it a GNU 1.2 license and CC-by-SA 3.0 which seems fine. I cropped the Tuor slays Othrod image from File:Tuor slays Othrod.jpg, using the Commons Croptool (which copies licensing and other info to the new file); the original Tuor slays Othrod file was similarly uploaded in 2007 by Loback; he gave it a GNU 1.2 and a CC-by-SA 2.5 license which is also fine; we have no idea why he'd use a different license there, but whatever his reason may have been, the images are both adequately licensed.
    • Alright. I was mostly curious. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Turgon's tower isn't mentioned in the text, so the illustration of its collapse lacks context.

• Removed.

• New comment: the Battle of Tears Unnumbered, the Nírnaeth Arnoediad and the site of the Battle of Tears Unnumbered include the same link twice in one paragraph. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Concept and creation

• This section seems a bit thin. It should be expanded, if possible.
  • We can merge it into Analysis if you prefer. It says what is needed about the real-world origins of the story.
    • No need to merge it. I just think that if it's possible to expand it with additional details, that should be done. Some other Tolkien articles have sections that contain quite a bit of information of this type, such as Isildur#Development and Glorfindel#Conception and creation, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I think it says what's needed here.

• the Noldorin city of Gondolin – "Noldorin" links to the language rather than to Noldor, presumably the intended target.

• Good catch, fixed.

• a more mature and complete narrative – "mature" means "developed" in this context rather than "adult", right? I would write that.

• Done.

• In some texts Tolkien spells his name Tûr, but finally decided on Tuor. – unsourced.

• Removed.

• In early versions of the story Tuor was supposed to have travelled all the way from Dor-lómin along the shores of the Sea to the Mouths of Sirion. There he met Voronwë (or "Bronweg"), and in Nan-tathren Ulmo appeared to them. The journey to Gondolin was thus up the River Sirion. – unsourced.

• Removed.

Analysis

• There's a fair bit of MOS:SAID in this section.
  • Not sure what the issue may be here as there is no flowery language in the section. It uses the plain "writes" or "states" when it's the scholar's opinion. It uses "notes" when the matter is one of verifiable fact, usually that the scholar is discussing something that Tolkien certainly wrote. Other than that, if someone is comparing A and B, it says "compares" or "compares and contrasts" which is certainly neutral. There is one "points out" for a verifiable fact that Garth mentions. There is one "praises" which is clearly justified by the source.
    • It's better now. Lisa Coutras noted that Tuor demonstrated wisdom and Jennifer Rogers notes [...] that Christopher Tolkien [...] seamlessly [...] introduces the story have been rephrased. "Compare" and "contrast" are fine when that is what the source is doing, and Linda Greenwood notes that Tuor is the only mortal Man in the legendarium permitted to live as an immortal is a good use of "note". That being said, Garth points out that this means is a bit argumentative in tone, and Garth notes that Tuor stands there, arms outspread at sunset is at least an odd phrasing to me (though that may have more to do with the rest of the sentence). TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks. OK, reworded two Garth statements and trimmed the long sentence.
        • Alright, that takes care of the MOS:SAID issue sufficiently that we can move on from it (though it introduced a new problem, mentioned below). TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Samuel Cook – who?

• Removed.

• writing in Anor – what?

• Removed.

• Lisa Coutras noted – is that really accurate? It seems like Coutras is reporting what others (such as Rawls, cited later in the article) are saying.

• Edited.

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=zrLIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA193 in the Coutras reference for ease of verification.

• Noted.

• Jennifer Rogers notes [...] – I'm not sure why this is included, i.e. what point it is intended to illustrate.
  • Edited to be more direct.
    • I'm guessing there is still something I'm missing (is Rogers' point just that the story exists within a larger mythology?), but I suppose it doesn't make a difference WP:GACR-wise. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• something not otherwise allowed – this link seems a bit questionable to me. It's also a bit redundant to say "not otherwise allowed" when the sentence already notes it as the only example.

• Removed.

• Is clarifyingcatholicism.org a reliable source? For that matter, is it needed?

• Removed It's fine, but it's not needed given the other source here.

• He finds it fitting that Tuor, "Tolkien's early quest-hero", escapes from the wreck of an old kingdom and creates new ones, just as Aeneas does, while his late quest-heroes in The Lord of the Rings, the hobbits of the Shire, are made to return to their home, ravaged while they were away, and are obliged to scour it clean, just as Odysseus does in Homer's Odyssey. – I'm not sure this falls on the right side of WP:Close paraphrasing.
  • Hm, it's clearly attributed and cited, and the paragraph, directly reporting the scholar's argument, must necessarily follow the scholar's logic. The names involved obviously must be given just as they are; the mention of the Scouring must necessarily use some form of that word. The alternative is to quote the whole thing, of course, if you think that better; I'll note many editors object to lengthy quotations, even when they are of intricate arguments like this one. If you'd care to suggest a better paraphrase I'll be happy to consider it. To put this in perspective, I ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector with the URL of the cited article, and it returns "Violation Unlikely" at 11.5% similarity, which no reviewer I've ever met would think worth beginning to worry about. Looking through the flagged-up words in the result, it says that "quest-hero" is shared - it was already in direct quotation marks - and "of an old kingdom" and (elsewhere) "premonition of impending danger" matched. And that was it, apart from false positives like "The Fall of Gondolin" (title of a story). In short, it's fine as it is.
    • A lengthy quote would definitely be worse. This obviously isn't copied outright from the source, but WP:Close paraphrasing covers things like word choice, word order, and sentence structure, and there is some not-inconsiderable overlap there. Earwig is not that much help when it comes to close paraphrasing since it detects identical sequences of words but cannot account for synonyms, minor restructuring, altered grammar, and the such. Like I said, I don't know which side of WP:Close paraphrasing this falls on. I'll ask others for their opinions; if nothing else, it'll be an opportunity for me to learn a bit more about assessing things like this. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed. Replaced with a brief lead-in, and then there's the table which says what is needed.
        • That works. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Earendil – missing diacritics.

• Added.

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=JMjgDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA64 in the Garth reference for ease of verification.

• Noted.

• Rawls' essay is available at https://dc.swosu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2031&context=mythlore and could be cited from Mythlore (1984) rather than Perilous and Fair: Women in the Works and Life of J. R. R. Tolkien (2015).

• Noted. I used the book.

• New comment: The copyediting of Garth's analysis removed the explanation of Eärendil not having turned into the Evening Star yet, making it unclear to the reader why it should be absent from the sky Tuor sees. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Restored.

• New comment: I would link Tolkien scholar. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

Influence

• I would mention when Perelandra was written or published for context.

• Added date and publisher.

• A species of moth, Elachista tuorella, was named after Tuor by Finnish entomologist Lauri Kaila. – I am unable to verify this (I can verify that the species exists). More to the point, if the only sources that discuss this are sources on the moth, it belongs at that article (and presumably at List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works) rather than this one.
  • I don't follow your logic here. If a zoologist names a species after the character, it has relevance to the character in the character's article. After all, novelists create many thousands of characters every year, and few of them ever get species named after them.
    • Sources on X mentioning Y demonstrates that Y is an important aspect of X, but not that X is an important aspect of Y. Species being named to reference fictional characters, celebrities and so on is not all that uncommon. These kinds of references are also fairly common in astronomy. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Whatever, removed.

• New comment: publishd – typo. TompaDompa (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

Adaptations

• Is this section necessary? If the characters don't appear but are only indirectly referenced it seems a tad questionable.
  • It's of interest that the weapon should be ascribed to the character.
    • Okay. TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Is elvish.org a reliable source?
  • Ryszard Derdzinski is a Tolkien scholar known for his work in linguistics.
    • Alright then. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• https://www.wetanz.com/shop/miniature-figures/lord-elrond-of-rivendell-dol-guldur is a dead link.

• Archived.

• New comment: In Peter Jackson's film adaptations of Tolkien's Middle-earth, Idril is named as the original owner of the sword Hadhafang – is she named as such in the films? The source seems to suggest that she isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• New comment: Elrond and Arwen – might as well link Elrond as well. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See my comments above.

2. 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:

   See my comments above. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio. See however above about WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There are no aspects that immediately stand out as missing to me.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See my comments above.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious neutrality issues. Opinions are clearly distinguished from facts and attributed as appropriate.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   All media are public domain or use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See my comment about Turgon's tower.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. Upon refreshing the page I see that you have edited the article a fair amount since I started my review, and it appears that a lot of the issues I brought up have been addressed already (great minds think alike, I suppose). I shall have to take a second look and update my comments above accordingly. TompaDompa (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa - I've addressed all the issues raised, and replied above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, we are almost done. TompaDompa (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

All done (I'll do a few edits that don't matter for WP:GACR purposes after promoting the article). Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)