Talk:Rivendell/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ardenter (talk · contribs) 23:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I think I could review this article.

Ardenter: Gosh, I didn't see this, I think the bot missed my talk page. Will attend to anything from now on promptly! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

In universe

First problem I see here is that the lede is very in universe. The Manual of Style states that "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should use the real world as their primary frame of reference. As such, the subject should be described from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction (work for short) and its publication are embedded." It describes Rivendell like a location in the second paragraph and uses past tense for story details instead of present tense. Ardenter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter I have rewritten the lead section to summarize the article in an out-of-universe way. The rest of the article was and is quite well rooted in out-of-universe scholarly analysis, but given what you say I've added some more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Images

Copyright

I've reviewed all images and they all are fair use or non-copyrighted. CHECK.

Noted, thanks.

Relevancy and captions

All images are relevant and captioned. CHECK.

Noted, thanks.

Stability

The article appears to be very stable. There are no edit wars. CHECK

Prose

The prose of the article is well written. I have not identified any errors. CHECK.

Coverage

Broadness

The article covers every aspect of Rivendell. CHECK.

Focus

My personal biggest problem with the article is its focus. The plot summary best demonstrates this. The article is just too long. Some the more irrelevant stuff needs to be cut for me to approve. FAIL.

Mmm. I'll check it over again.

On length, it's 24k. Among other Middle-earth places with Good Articles, Harad is 33k and Gondor is 61k, so Rivendell is not exceptionally long. I'm not sure why this very moderate length should be a difficulty?

Also, could you let me know what, exactly, you find irrelevant? Here's a quick analysis:

• 1 Etymology - certainly relevant
• 2 Fictional context: this puts the place 'on the map' for the reader
• 2.1 Geography - brief, certainly relevant for a place
• 2.2 History - 5 paragraphs about Rivendell's role in events; this is what ties the place into story as enjoyed by readers
• 2.3 Culture - 2 paragraphs, seems reasonable for the topic
• 2.4 Calendar - one paragraph, small table; this is technical but on-topic
• 3 Analysis - this shows why the topic is notable and what scholars have made of it
• 3.1 Physical origins - this gives the real-world correspondences for the place
• 3.2 A place of sanctuary - this shows what scholars think the place means
• 3.3 Heroic quest's starting-point - this indicates its role in the Lord of the Rings story
• 3.4 Cultural allusions - this shows what Rivendell's poetry and chronicling are imagined to be like

• 4 Adaptations - this shows what film-maker and artist have made of the place
• 5 Legacy - this shows Rivendell's impact on culture in the world

Ardenter: From my point of view, all of this is plainly relevant; so I'd like to know your concern so that I can address it as best I can. Meanwhile, I've cut down the "History" section, which is perhaps the one you intend, so it's now only 3 short paragraphs; overall length is now only 22k. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The good article criteria requires that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)." The history section goes into far much detail. Is a calendar really needed? Is an in depth analysis of the culture needed? The history section can be considerably cut down. Ideally, it should cover only what happens in the books and major historical events. While this would be perfect for a fan wiki, its far too in depth for Wikipedia. Ardenter (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ardenter: Thank you for your reply. I have cut the history section again; it only covers the most major events in the books now. I've removed the Culture and Calendar sections, leaving only brief mentions in the now very short History. One might however think it remarkable that Tolkien would have troubled to mention that the place kept its own calendar and had its own songs, let alone actually describing the calendar's mechanism and providing the songs in singable form, in Elvish. The in-universe section is now less than 1/3 as long as the real-world sections Analysis, Adaptations, and Legacy, so it certainly can not be described as going into much detail. I can assure you that no fan wiki has any Analysis of scholarly opinion, let alone more of it than in-universe description. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe that passes. As far as I can check the article meets every criteria now, so I've passed it. Chiswick Chap