- This review is transcluded from Talk:Anachronism in Middle-earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving. Review might take a few days though. I never thought much about the anachronisms in Middle Earth, but I like the appearance of the blunderbuss in Famer Giles of Ham very much. —Kusma (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. As always, if you find anything that needs attention, I'll try to get to it promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content and prose review
Leaving lead for last.
- Cultures: introduce Sandra Ballif Straubhaar
- Aeneas/Romulus/Remus are not from the real "ancient Rome", but from its founding myth; not sure if this can/should be made more explicit.
- Tom Shippey's words: I am confused by [his italics]: Shippey's or Tolkien's? perhaps "italics in original" is clearer.
- Table: "twin brother founders" Isildur and Anarion being twins is news to me
- "Tolkien gave the date of the Diamond Jubilee" in what context?
- Modern Hobbits: not sure Hobbits need to be uppercase, but happy to be convinced
- Fixed.
- It is a bit inconsistent now, as the text still has Hobbits, just this heading has hobbits.
- Table: "first existed" is very much from an English point of view
- 'Available', then, but the Old World/European point of view is necessary here.
- Sure, I am just wondering whether this can be clearer from the table headings.
- Medieval but modern: "the modern maxim 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'" should probably be attributed. Shippey gives both Lord Acton in 1887 and an earlier statement by William Pitt (presumably the prime minister) to a similar effect. I am not fully happy that this is contrasted only to medieval thought, but of course we can't say more without sources; I would expect the effect of power on people (like, say, Gaius Marius) to have been discussed in classical antiquity. Is there a way to mention what Gandalf or Galadriel say about the Ring here?
- A literary process: "the anachronism of the Hobbits in a more ancient world turned out to be both inherent and necessary" is a slightly elliptic statement; inherent in what and necessary for what?
- Are any of the other anachronisms discussed in the sources? The prehistoric look of the construction of Esgaroth, the industrialised warfare of Mordor and Isengard?
More later! —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead section is a bit short overall. We don't have anything on the anachronistic objects used by the hobbits, which occupy a few paragraphs in the body. The treatment of the One Ring in the lead is much weaker than the "it is in conception strikingly anachronistic, totally modern" cited in the body.
- OK, added a bit on both those topics.
General comments and GA criteria
- Prose is fine, just some inconsistency with Hobbits/hobbits.
- Lead is a bit short, but no major MoS issues.
- Ref layout is OK. I would prefer to see the primary reference list using "T1", "T2" as the footnote markers do, but I don't know how to make the templates do that, so I certainly can't ask you to do it (also, my personal preferences are sadly not entirely the same as the GA criteria).
- Sources are fine, especially the Tolkien scholarship. The sources for the "'strikingly anachronistic' material culture" table are a bit random but do the job. Did a few spotchecks, was happy.
- Scope is fine, no neutrality/stability issues. One thing to expand on could be how/whether the anachronisms are visible in adaptations of Tolkien's work. You mention Nasmith but nothing else.
- OK, I've added a bit on Jackson's film treatment. Kind of tangentially relevant, probably.
- Images are free except one, and it has a good enough fair use rationale: the sketch by Tolkien himself showing the anachronistic clock and barometer and a decidedly non-medieval home.
Not much for me to suggest overall (lead/Hobbits mostly), looks like yet another good article. —Kusma (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy now, even if the new adaptations section has only one source. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 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.
