Talk:Morgoth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review Fëanor, Morgoth, and Silmarils. It may take a bit longer than usual. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article should be written in the present tense per MOS:WAF.
  • Done.
    • A few spots remain: Belegurth, meaning "Great Death", was employed, Tulkas entered Eä and tips the balance., and the Noldor establish kingdoms and made war on Morgoth. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Done.

• The Tale of Beren and Lúthien does not need to be linked in the "See also" section, since it is linked in the WP:LEAD and infobox.

• Removed.

Lead

• For the characteristics of all the divine characters of Middle-earth, see Valaquenta. – why is this here?

• Removed the hat.

• the definitive antagonist of Arda – peculiar phrasing.
  • OK, "primary" it is. The linking is fine.
    • Great, "primary" works much better. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Scholars have likened Morgoth, too, to John Milton's fallen angel in Paradise Lost. – the only scholar cited as doing so in the body is Holmes, and in this context that fallen angel is Satan (Rosebury, though not cited in this particular context, even explicitly refers to "Milton's Satan"). See also my comments below.
  • Tweak. And see below.
    • That takes care of part of it, but this is still an example of a comparison to Satan rather than a different comparison. Saying that Morgoth has been likened "too" to Milton's fallen angel makes it sound like the fallen angel isn't Satan. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Glossed. We need to be careful here, as the equations in literature are never 100%, this isn't mathematics.

• New comment: The lead currently mentions two of the three aspects in the "Interpretation" section (Satan and Odin). The third should probably also get a mention. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

• New comment: One of the Maiar of Aulë betrays his kind and becomes Morgoth's principal lieutenant and successor, Sauron. – this is technically extra info, i.e. not covered in the body. I don't mind it since it provides context for readers familiar with The Lord of the Rings but not The Silmarillion (likely a fair proportion of them), but should it be mentioned somewhere in the body? I'll leave it up to you. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

Name

• This section feels like its contents are a bit out of order.
  • Yes, rejiggled a bit.
    • That's an improvement. I wonder if it wouldn't be even better to start with the The name Morgoth is Sindarin (one of Tolkien's invented languages) and means "Dark Enemy" or "Black Foe". part. The in-universe history stuff is covered in the "Fictional history" section and should in this section be the secondary focus, only providing some basic context for the "name analysis" (for lack of a better term). You can think about it, at least. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Reordered.

• I would link Noldor.

• Linked.

• The Edain – gloss.

• Done.

• Amlach of the House of Hador – is the reader expected to know who this is?

• Replaced the gloss.

• New comment: in the legendarium – I would link Tolkien's legendarium. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Done.

• New comment: The darker name is bestowed by Finwë's son Fëanor, and the Elves call him thereafter by that name alone. – this is repeated in the "Fictional history" section (as Fëanor thereupon names him Morgoth, "Black Foe", and the Elves know him by this name alone afterwards.), and I think it fits better in that section. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Removed.

Fictional history

• Eru Ilúvatar (analogous to God) – I would explain who Ilúvatar is in-universe rather than rely on analogy with real-world religions.

• Glossed.

• until the Remaking of the World (analogous to the Apocalypse). – the link to Apocalypse is not helpful here. Is this to say that it is analogous to the events of the Book of Revelation? Assuming this refers to Dagor Dagorath, didn't Tolkien say that the closest counterpart was Ragnarök? At any rate, does this even need a gloss? When I read "the Remaking of the World", I mentally append "at the end of time".

• Removed. Tolkien (naturally) had both the Norse myth and the Bible in mind, all the time. Quite a feat.

• and the Eldar knew him – is it necessary to use the (somewhat opaque) term "Eldar" here?

• Yes, Elves will do as nobody cares much about the Avari (except Tolkiendils and conlang freaks, of course ;-} ).

• A map of Beleriand might be rather helpful for the latter parts of this section.

• Yeah, why not since I've conveniently drawn one already.

• the Man Beren and Elf Lúthien, the daughter of Thingol – Thingol is not mentioned before or after this, so mentioning that Lúthien is Thingol's daughter doesn't really add any context.

• Agree, gone.

• His evil remained, however, as "Arda Marred," – odd link.

• Removed.

• New comment: the three kindreds of Elves that had come to Valinor – might this be a good place to include a link to Sundering of the Elves? I'll leave it up to you. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Linked.

Development

• This section seems to be about two different things. The first two paragraphs outline the real-world history of how the character changed as Tolkien developed and updated his legendarium across his lifetime, while the last three give a bunch of in-universe details.

• Removed the last stuff.

• The last paragraph seems off-topic. It's really all about Sauron.

• Removed.

Interpretation

• Is the image fan art?
  • I believe so. Replied below to your comment on the image.
    • I though we didn't use fan art for stuff like this? Oh well, I suppose you know better than I do. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • If the images are free and of usable quality, as here, there is no reason why not.

• I would restructure this section to put all the Satan stuff in the same paragraph and leave the non-Satan stuff out of that paragraph.

• Done.

• Melkor has been interpreted as analogous to Satan – this is a bit vague. I expect that this is so common among Tolkien scholars that attributing it to any single one of them would be contrary to WP:NPOV by underselling the prevalence of this interpretation. Can we get sourcing for it being a common interpretation?
  • Not easy, as the ghost of OR hovers close, and I'm not keen on the [1][2][3][4][5][6] solution either. Let's just say "For example ... (scholar x) ..." which gives the reader the needed clue.
    • Alright, that works for me. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• suggests that Melkor's nature resonates with John Milton's fallen angel in Paradise Lost – to someone not familiar with the material, it is not clear that this is an instance of comparison to Satan, specifically.
  • Gosh. Ok, "(Satan)" it is. Feels like wearing belt, braces, and trouser buttons all at once to me, for fear of some terrible shaming embarrassment.
    • Indeed, using both "For example" and "(Satan)" is probably overdoing it a bit. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=B0loOBA3ejIC&pg=PA428 in the Holmes reference for ease of verification.
  • This is beyond the GA criteria; I won't object if you choose to link it.
    • I know, hence the "I would". I might link it once the GAN is closed. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just as in Christian tradition Satan leads humanity to become slaves of sin, Melkor creates an "iron hell" for his elven slave labourers. – what the source says is "Unlike the Satan of Christian tradition, Melko is jailer to living beings – the thrall-Noldoli who slave for him in his Hells of Iron". Garth is contrasting Satan and Melkor, not drawing parallels.
  • OK, "Whereas" it is.
    • in Christian tradition Satan leads humanity to become slaves of sin – I don't find this in the cited source? I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure what point Garth is trying to make here, exactly—is perhaps "living" the key word? TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Cut the phrase, it's not needed. If Garth was trying to draw a comparison between dead-and-in-hell-human-souls and living-but-in-hell-elven-thralls, it's a bit hmm isn't it. Let's do without that bit.

• His greed for ever more power and his fondness for technology make him a symbol for the despotism of modern machinery. – I don't think this reflects what the source says particularly well.
  • Tweaked. The match doesn't seem too bad, looking back at it. Here's Garth: Melko[r] "represents the tyranny of the machine over life and nature ... the higher arts and sciences are subsumed or crushed in the service of mechanical industry". I guess we can drop "his fondness for technology" if this is the point to be made here.
    • I guess, but it seems rather out of place in a section about Satan. "Make" also needs to become "makes" now that "his fondness" has been dropped. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Tweaked; "iron hell ... machinery" seems a comfortable enough fit with the Satanic, and we certainly don't have a better place for it.
        • Alright then. See however my above comment about "in Christian tradition Satan leads humanity to become slaves of sin". TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
          • Fixed up there too.

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=OODLVikjYksC&pg=PA222 in the Garth reference for ease of verification, using |chapter-url= and |chapter=Castles in the Air.
  • This is beyond the GA criteria.
    • As above. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Fëanor, who loves the Silmarils he created so much that he leads his entire people to a hopeless war when Melkor steals them. – the source says "Fëanor, who becomes enamoured of the Silmarils he has created, and leads his entire people into an unwinnable war when they are stolen from him by Melkor". Methinks this falls on the wrong side of WP:Close paraphrasing.

• Reworded.

• I would link https://books.google.com/books?id=XsJ645BbokAC&pg=PA115 in the Rosebury reference for ease of verification. I would also add Harold Bloom as editor.
  • Beyond the GA criteria.
    • As above. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would link Tolkien scholar.

• Done.

• The Silmarillion is most obviously a calque on the book of Genesis (where the Shire is a calque upon England). – this makes it sound like England appears in Genesis.
  • Tweaked.
    • How about "as" in lieu of "where"? The point is presumably that they are calques in the same way. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Tweaked again to "whereas". I note that while we are not trying to confuse our transatlantic friends, Tolkien articles are all written in British English.
        • That works for me, as would "much like", "in the same way", "just as" and so on. I expect all articles, regardless of WP:ENGVAR used in therein, to be phrased in such a way as to not be confusing to anybody who is reasonably proficient in English, whether they speak British English, American English, Australian English, some other regional English, or even (and especially) if they speak it as a second or third language. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
          • A worthy but unattainable goal.

• Tolkien thus says that even Melkor begins with good intentions, just as Satan was created good. – Tolkien does not say that Satan was created good. Shippey quotes Lewis as saying that "God created all things without exception good" in A Preface to Paradise Lost.
  • Tweaked.
    • That works. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Shippey concludes that clearly the reader can assume [...] – Shippey says "Clearly one can, if one wishes, assume [...]". The phrase "if one wishes" is key here; Shippey asserts that one can choose to interpret it this way. Shippey's thesis is that Tolkien intentionally did not contradict Genesis when it came to humanity's origin story.

• Hm, tweaked.

• I would link Adam and Eve, Serpents in the Bible#Eden, and Garden of Eden

• Done.

• Odin's negative characteristics "—his ruthlessness, his destructiveness, his malevolence, his all-pervading deceit" – what's up with the dash?
  • OK, let's try a different punctuation, it doesn't matter but we need something there.
    • The colon works. It was mainly the placement of the dash inside the quote that seemed off to me. TompaDompa (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• I would include a link to Norse mythology somewhere.

• Linked.

• She notes that Morgoth, too, is named "Master of Lies" and "Demon of Dark", and who functions as a fierce god of battle. – "and who" does not seem grammatical here.

• Edited.

• notes both that Melkor initiates the rebellion against Eru – I don't see how this ties into the rest of the paragraph? It is cited separately from the rest of the paragraph but I don't really understand why. Without it, all of this comes from the "Making versus Hoarding" chapter and the reference could include a link to https://books.google.com/books?id=L6Byko7dGpgC for ease of verification (though the page numbers would need to be changed since that's a different edition).

• Removed. The link is beyond the GA criteria.

• observing that the commandment "Love not too well the work of thy hands and the devices of thy heart" is actually stated in The Silmarillion. – "actually"?

• Reworded.

• The last paragraph is rather lengthy and heavily reliant on verbatim quotes. It could probably be condensed significantly.

• Edited; the remaining quotations are essential, and the paragraph is not especially long.

• New comment: I don't think the stuff that is cited to Rosebury (His rebellion against Eru is creative [...]) makes it sufficiently clear how it relates to Satan. The source goes into it a bit more. Page 113 also briefly raises the "nothing is created evil" aspect, which might be useful. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Added a bit more.

• New comment: Shouldn't the Further information: Christianity in Middle-earth hatnote be in the "Satanic figure" subsection? The other two don't really relate to this. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Moved.

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:

   The references are all to primary or scholarly sources, as appropriate.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig gives a couple of false positives where the copying was clearly done in the opposite direction. See however above about WP:Close paraphrasing. Since resolved.

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 use licenses that are acceptable per WP:CFAQ.

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

   Unsure about the image of Morgoth.

   Well, it's CC-by-SA and relevant to the article. I think the existence of fan art is itself noteworthy: there's unsurprisingly extensive fan attention for LOTR and TH, but it does indeed extend to Silmarillion characters too.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa: I think I've done everything (in all three reviews) - please ping me directly if I've missed anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, that seems to be about it then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)