First sentence is cut off
The first sentence ends abruptly 'where he unveiled for the first time to a listening public the art that he had both.' I have not read Tolkien's text so cannot guess what is missing. I did not find an earlier version of the Wiki text that had the missing part. Gdeyoe, 07:54, 28 October 2018
Frzzl: Refs are far more manageable, both within an article and between articles, if named intelligibly. Thus "Shippey 2005" is preferable to ":7" or other incomprehensible identifier. Actually the whole WikiProject uses the name-and-date style, including this article up until yesterday. I'd be very glad if we could now restore that usage, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't see this - yes, I will ensure that these are kept. Apologies, I'm using VisualEditor and it slaps these in all over the place, so I don't see them unless I have to switch to source mode for some reason. ~~~ Frzzl talk; contribs 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. --Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap Hi - OK, so my reasons for removing those two pieces are:
For the Fauskanger: Having read it, it seemed to me that Fauskanger is discussing Tolkien's constructed languages, and his relations with constructed languages, but not A Secret Vice in itself. He mentions the essay twice in the webpage: the first is when he's talking about Animalic; the second is when he quotes it to talk about the creation of Tolkien's mythology and Elvish. Nowhere in this does he actually comment about the essay itself, or really provide any analysis, so I don't see why we'd include it in the Reception section. It'd be fine as a source for Languages constructed by J. R. R. Tolkien, but I can't justify it for this article.
For the second: it's written by Higgins, the editor of the book. Therefore, it's not independent, so I removed it. Also, why would we put in Higgins' reception of his own book???
Please tell me if you find this argument acceptable, hope it justifies it better than what I can stick in an edit summary. Frzzl talk; contribs 21:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Higgins clearly has to go. The Fauskanger quotation in the article actually names the essay, making it a little hard to claim it's off-topic. I'll cut it down a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- This review is transcluded from Talk:A Secret Vice/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this, hopefully over the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments prior to formal review
- Per MOS:REFERS, the title should talk about A Secret Vice as being the lecture, not as its title.
Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think lectures count as MOS:MINORWORKS, and should therefore be non-italicised and in double quotes.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- these included phonoaesthetics: use the present tense, as you have previously.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The talk was first published in essay form in 1983, in an anthology of Tolkien's unpublished works: I know what this means, but it's a bit awkward, as publishing the works made them no longer unpublished. We also take for granted that a work was unpublished until its first publication.
- Comment: Added "previously" to indicated that it hadn't been released beforehand. Feel free to change as needed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tolkien began his interest in conlanging: not a major problem, but was conlanging a term used at the time? I wonder whether "constructing artificial languages" with the same link would be less anachronistic?
- Why is Animalic in italics? We don't italicise "French", for example. What does "involved with" mean here?
- Fixed Animalics, Comment: regarding the "involved with" part, I assumed it meant that T was involved in its creation or used it as a youth -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any way to be more precise: what does the source say here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Added "of" to separate the wikilinks
More to follow.
A few more:
- Tolkien begins the text: a nit-pick, but I would generally refer to the work as "the lecture" or similar, as the text is only a (much later) recording of what was said.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- the need of a unifying international language: I think this should be the need for (as in, the idea that we need one).
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He then introduces a hierarchy of these languages, in terms of their development: not quite grammatical: in terms of isn't idiomatic here, and the overall meaning isn't clear. Would suggest something like "he then attempts to categorise these languages by their level of complexity" or similar: development isn't a great term (after all, everyone's constructed language is exactly as developed as its developers think it needs to be), but you may have a better view on what T. was driving at here.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To illustrate this, the example of Animalic, a language built solely from animal names is given: comma after animal names.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- the invention of this is an example of the linguistic ability of humans: I'm not sure what this means.
- : in polyglotism, poetry, and, in conlanging.: no commas around and (and see my comment earlier about "conlanging" as potentially anachronistic).
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, language names should not be in italics unless we're specifically talking about the name of/word for that language (rather than the language itself).
- The joy of language invention in relation to this is discussed, as well as its lack of recognition as an art form, and its subsequent lack of publicity by its practitioners: this is very clunky in the passive voice.
- Fixed Changed to active voice -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- more developed phonetics: hm -- what does T. mean by this? Most linguists would consider it a meaningless concept.
- (random Tolkienist editor intruding:) That T. had worked out the phonetics of the conlang rather more fully, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not totally happy here: it's a perfectly valid opinion that a constructed language is somehow better if its phonology is more restrictively defined, or differs more from the constructor's native language, but that is just an opinion: we should be as clear as we can about what we mean by developed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I think you're trying too hard here. The meaning is just that the thing was worked out in more detail rather than being a hasty (childish) sketch. Any wording in that direction should be sufficient. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Quenya and Noldorin: I would contextualise these as to what they are and where they're from, as we have for other conlangs.
- concluding the lecture likening: by likening.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- an a posteriori and a priori mix: this could be clearer.
- The sentence about the 2016 publication is a bit of a run-on: do we really need the publisher here (but nowhere else)?
- Comment: Tried to trim the prose
- Per MOS:MINORWORKS, essay titles should be deitalicised and in double quotes. Capitalise "Its" as a pronoun.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The final paragraph of "Publication" starts with an extremely long run-on sentence: suggest splitting.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The Norwegian linguist and Tolkien scholar Helge Fauskanger : I'm generally a fan of introducing new people, but why does Fauskanger get an introduction when most others don't?
- The first two sentences of the Fauskanger quote don't seem to add very much, or to say very much that a plain-language paraphrase couldn't, and therefore would be good candidates for cutting under WP:NFCC.
- and that it was his application of the set of rules he outlined: need to restate T's name here.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews of the 2016 edition are all sourced to themselves, rather than a secondary treatment. This isn't a problem in itself, but means we need to be careful about how much airtime we give them (not having secondary sources to plead WP:DUEWEIGHT): in particular, the Fisher review gets a lot more space than the others. It might be wise to group the reviews by the sort of points they make, rather than treating each individually.
- In the reference to Smith 2017 (and other reviews), the title of the book should be italicised.
- Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably all for now. I'll let you chip in on them before we do the formalities and spotchecks. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your thorough review! I'm currently travelling, but I should be able to address your points over the weekend. Frzzl talk; contribs 19:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great: take your time and I look forward to your responses when you're ready. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist: I've went ahead and did my best to implement GAR recs, as marked above. Of course, feel free to amend the content as needed but hopefully this helps facilitate the GAR for you. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for these comments -- a few replies above; I'll give the article another read and then get to spotchecks when I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Hi UndercoverClassicist - many apologies for not getting around to this review, I've been completely snowed under over the last month. I haven't been able to find a text source to confirm the copyright status of the image, so have removed it from the article. Perhaps something to bring up on the talk page of Tolkien's article as it's the main image, and the other on Commons is dreadful, but that's a discussion for another day. @Dcdiehardfan:, thank you so much for addressing the review points, I'm completely indebted to you. If that was the only outstanding remark, are we OK to progress to spotchecks? Frzzl talk; contribs 21:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
To follow.
- Note 3: it was the first time that Tolkien made his hobbies of language creation and phonoaesthetics public: not quite supported by the source, which has his first public exposition for his views on language, language creation, and sound symbolism. He could have been open about his hobby without making a public exposition of his views on how to do it best. The citation is broadly given: is there another passage that better fits, or another source?
- I've changed "hobbies" to "views" to accord with the source. His talk did of course also make it plain that his views were closely tied to his hobby. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 5: Although the original manuscript for the talk gave its name as A Hobby For The Home: I don't see this supported in the source.
- The source says "As to the title, some readers over the years may have found it a little strange that Christopher Tolkien opted for "A Secret Vice," the title Tolkien recalled more than thirty years after the lecture, rather than "A Hobby for the Home," as given in the manuscript (Monsters 3-4)", which would seem to be quite sufficient for the claim made in the text here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 8: This was left out of the 1983 edition because it was written in pencil in the original manuscript, and it was therefore not clear that it was intended to be part of the main lecture: this checks out.
Two points to look at above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)UndercoverClassicist: I've replied to the two points above, so the article should be good to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy that this meets the GA standards and so to pass. Well done to you both for your work on the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fixed -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Done -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Added "previously" to indicated that it hadn't been released beforehand. Feel free to change as needed. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
