Talk:Fëanor/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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

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

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

General comments[edit]

  • The article should be written in the present tense per MOS:WAF.
  • Fixed. You may like to note that "Messengers from Formenos tell him that Melkor has killed Finwë and stolen the Silmarils." is in the present tense and cannot be further reduced.
  • The article is not consistent when it comes to the capitalization (or not) of "Elf"/"Elves"/"Elvish".
  • Fixed.
  • The "Notes" section is empty.
  • Removed.
  • Removed. There is a category of editor which routinely adds such things.
  • At the risk of being a bit annoying, is there a strong reason to have separate articles for Fëanor and the Silmarils? They are very intertwined both in-universe and when it comes to scholarly analysis. If I were writing it all from scratch, I think I would probably cover Fëanor, the sons of Fëanor, the Oath of Fëanor, and the Silmarils in a single article. There is significant overlap, arguably to the point of redundancy.
    • But there is strong reason. Fëanor is a major character in his own right, and the cited scholars discuss him as such: indeed, we have at least four scholars illuminating different aspects of his powerful but dangerously creative nature, and drawing parallels with Tolkien and his own "sub-creation". That makes him clearly notable per WP:N as he is discussed substantially in multiple reliable sources. And whatever you think of the popular culture uses, there is no doubt that Fëanor is significant in that realm also.
      • Notability is of course not the only consideration; sometimes notable topics are better covered in articles about other, typically broader, topics. I suppose the comparison with Byrhtnoth, which is wholly unrelated to the Silmarils, would have no place in that article. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the Silmarils, scholars are clear that the created light symbol is extremely important in Tolkien's writings; it isn't an accident that the Silmarillion is named for them.
      • Indeed, and I wouldn't suggest to cover the Silmarils primarily in an article about Fëanor. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • I'll note for the record that I am aware that parts of the WP:LEAD (and body, for that matter) have been rewritten by a different editor since you nominated the article. Not to put too fine a point on it, at least the first paragraph of the lead was significantly better before that rewrite.
  • Well then we are at liberty to restore it now under your mandate. Restored. You may need to intervene if there is any comeback on this.
  • the King of the Noldor – I might clarify a tiny bit further by saying "Noldor Elves".
  • Done.
  • As a great loremaster and creator, he improved the Sarati alphabet, inventing the Tengwar text – this is a rather deep dive into intricate in-universe details to put into the first paragraph of the WP:LEAD. I daresay uninitiated readers might be put off.
  • Now much toned down, per the item above.
  • Palantir and the Feanorian Lamps are also Fëanor's creations. – missing diacritics and odd use of the singular form aside, this seems like excessive in-universe details to me.
  • See above.
  • stole the Silmarils and kills Finwe, Fëanor's father – inconsistent verb tense, missing diacritics, and unnecessary gloss (Fëanor being Finwë's son is mentioned in the preceding paragraph).
  • Again, see above.
  • back to the Middle-earth – "the" Middle-earth? I would link Middle-earth. This also presupposes some familiarity with the events ("back" there?).
  • Gone.
  • revenging their father – this phrasing sticks out to me. I would use "avenge" rather than "revenge" with a construction like this.
  • Gone.
  • Scholars have seen Fëanor's pride as Biblical – only one—Jane Chance—is mentioned in the body. See also my comments about that analysis below.
    • Fixed, and see below.
      • The body no longer describes Fëanor's pride, specifically, as Biblical. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded.
  • responses to World War – not really in the body. See also my comments below.
  • Fixed in body.
  • Should the character's race be plural in the infobox? It seems more intuitive to me to use the singular form.
    • The race of Men, the race of Elves... I think we have this correct.
  • Linked.
  • Linked.
  • New comment: but his sons unite in the cause of defeating Morgoth and retrieving the Silmarils. Though they live on in relative harmony with the Elves of Beleriand for the greater part of the First Age, they eventually commit further Kinslayings against their fellow Elves, and their wayward actions define the fate of Beleriand. – this should perhaps be somewhat condensed now that the "Aftermath" portion has been. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Fictional history[edit]

  • his mother, Míriel, died, exhausted, shortly after giving birth to him. – very heavy on the commas. I also don't know if this really reflects the source accurately ("Míriel, who in giving birth to Fëanor is 'consumed in spirit and body' and loses the desire to live")
    • Certainly means she dies, yes. The appositional commas are correct, and I note that the way we read such things (out loud) differs between the British English of Middle-earth articles and other varieties.
      • Saying that she dies doesn't bother me, I got that part. It's more that "dies, exhausted" suggests to me a rather different cause of death than "is 'consumed in spirit and body' and loses the desire to live" does. TompaDompa (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quoted directly. I see we don't agree that consumed etc = exhausted, which I wholeheartedly believe; if your body and spirit are consumed (i.e. eaten up from inside), you are indeed wholly exhausted (i.e. wholly used up), an excellent and apposite paraphrase. I've replaced it with a direct quotation which even the pickiest can't disagree with.
          • That works. To me, "dies, exhausted" suggests a natural death whereas "is 'consumed in spirit and body' and loses the desire to live" suggests supernatural elements. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even the Valar – maybe "the divine Valar"?
    • They are already glossed above, but not linked there to avoid sea-of-blue.
      • Right, in the singular (the godlike Vala Aulë). I guess that does it, but I would prefer the Valar to be glossed in the plural (they're all godlike, not just Aulë). Could perhaps "Aulë, one of the godlike Valar" work? TompaDompa (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Said "with their godlike powers". Even so, there is now an undesirable overlap with the existing gloss on Aulë.
  • Melkor, recently released – I would say "The Vala Melkor" lest the reader think Melkor is one of the Elves.
  • Done.
  • among the Noldor – already linked earlier in the body.
  • Fixed.
  • Fëanor warned Fingolfin not to spread lies about him, sow discord and alienate him and their father when hearing Fingolfin doing so. – I find it difficult to parse this.
  • Trimmed.
  • As punishment, the Valar exiled Fëanor to Formenos for twelve years. – it's not entirely clear why they punished him, but if the preceding sentence is rewritten that issue might resolve itself.
  • Rewritten.
  • Also gloss "Formenos".
  • Done.
  • and sent Tulkas to capture Melkor – it's not clear from reading this that Tulkas is one of the Valar. Could the sentence be rephrased?
  • Glossed.
  • but after Finwe's death claimed High Kingship himself – this is out of chronology and lacks diacritics.
  • Cut.
  • Fëanor accepted, but The Two Trees were destroyed by Melkor with the aid of Ungoliant. – non sequitur.
  • Edited.
  • He gave a speech in Tirion – gloss "Tirion"
  • Done.
  • What is the source in the image caption meant to verify?
    • The caption text, and in turn the image.
      • I guess I don't really see the point. The caption mostly just summarizes parts of the "Fictional history" section that is already properly sourced there, and the only thing the cited page really covers is Fëanor being motivated more by the loss of Finwë than the Silmarils. TompaDompa (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed. I can easily see another editor complaining at some point that the caption is uncited, i.e. we're in danger of entering an endless revision loop here.
  • What is the Tor.com source meant to verify?
  • Agree, no longer needed here.
  • became subject to the Doom of Mandos – meaning what?
  • Glossed.
  • Feanor knew that Fingolfin was cursing him. – huh? Also missing diacritics.
  • Removed, said Fingolfin was furious below.
  • I would probably mention Fingolfin's return to Beleriand since it's shown in the map.
  • Done.
  • Does (all of) the "Aftermath" section belong on this article or should (parts of) it be somewhere else?
  • We don't need it anywhere else, so as with 'Context' material, it's a judgement call how much before and after material to include. The final paragraph is unquestionably relevant. I've cut down and merged the other two.
  • They stoled a Silmaril from Morgoth. – grammar, but also: is "steal" the right term?
  • Fixed.
  • the two surviving oath-takers – the article says that all of Fëanor's seven sons swear the oath, and the deaths of four have been mentioned. What about Amrod?
  • This has now all been cut down, so the focus is on Fëanor.
  • two more remained inside the crown of Morgoth. At the end of the War of Wrath the two surviving oath-takers, Maedhros and Maglor, stole the two Silmarils from the camp of the victorious Hosts of Valinor. – should probably clarify that Morgoth was defeated in the War of Wrath, since otherwise one would expect the Silmarils to still be in his possession.
  • As above.

Development[edit]

  • Tolkien wrote at least four versions of the Oath of Fëanor itself [...] Morgoth's Ring. – I suppose this is all implicitly cited to the primary sources mentioned, but the citation style makes it look like it is all cited to the same source as the heraldry.
  • Added. Actually the citations are discussed explicitly and completely in the text, so to an old-fashioned editor's mind there's not a lot of point in repeating them word for word in bluelinks. However I recognise that the QA-style check-the-bluelinks-and-tick-the-box mentality is spreading among worthy editors. Right, let's add the bluelinks, redundant or not.
  • It would be nice to at least have the page for the source on the heraldry.
  • Done.

Analysis[edit]

  • Repositioned.
  • Why is there one subsection called "Pride" and one called "Pride in sub-creation"?
    • Adjusted. The vainglorious pride that Solopova is on about isn't the same as the extreme delight in one's creations that Shippey discusses.
      • Renaming the first "Pride and downfall" has indeed done the trick. TompaDompa (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I know this is a different edition of Tolkien's Art: 'A Mythology for England' than the one cited, but it's the one that is available to me and I doubt it makes a difference for this (beyond the page numbers not being the same). With that said:
    • The Tolkien scholar Jane Chance sees Fëanor's pride as Biblical – is this really accurate? Chance describes some aspects of The Silmarillion as (thematically) Biblical, but I don't think this reflects the source all that well.
      • Checked the source and reworded. Note that she says in terms that both Melkor and Fëanor succumb to pride, followed by downfall; and that Melkor corrupts both Elves and Men. More Biblical, Book 1, Genesis, – Satan's fall, then Satan's corrupting of the human race – than that you can't get.
        • The fall of Satan is not in the Book of Genesis, is it? Certainly not before the fall of Adam and Eve, at any rate. I'm admittedly not a Biblical scholar. The reworded version works. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think including Chance's analysis here is something of a stretch. Chance is not really making a point about Fëanor but about Morgoth/Melkor in the relevant passage.
      • You are not wrong that she's interested in Melkor, but Fëanor is certainly important in her analysis. I've added another short quotation, which shows her point about Fëanor.
  • Reworded.
  • I would mention when the Battle of Maldon occurred (and probably link the battle itself too, not just the poem).
  • Done.
  • Who is John Ellison?
    • He's glossed as writing in Mallorn.
  • Done, even if I do think that overkill - the journal is already linked.
  • Done.
  • He describes as parallel Mann's depiction of Leverkühn in a collapsing Nazi Germany and Tolkien's starting his mythology amidst the collapse of pre-1914 Europe – so he does, but what does that have to do with the subject of this article?
    • Um, the pact with the devil, the impulse that drives German leaders to war... without the context this gives, the whole of Ellison's argument collapses into incomprehensibility.
      • I'll admit to finding Ellison's argument, while not outright incomprehensible, rather unpersuasive (parallels to the Faust legend are pretty significantly undercut by the acknowledgment that there is no pact with the devil). Maybe there's something I'm missing. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The scholars may be right or wrong in the judgement of history, but the job of the article and all its editors is to report what the scholars argued, no to outthink the scholars. I've said more on Ellison's argument below.
          • I mean, it's always possible that the argument is poor—and it's also possible that it's brilliant and I'm too stupid to understand it—but I'm more inclined to think that it's just not communicated effectively. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure what if anything we need to do about it: I think probably just accept it really, unless you feel I haven't done Ellison justice.
              • It's a bit difficult to tell, honestly. Ellison doesn't do the greatest job at conveying the core points in a straightforward and easy-to-follow manner (would benefit from an abstract or similar). I don't think we're going to get much further than this within a reasonable amount of time, so it's probably better if we just move on from this, as you suggest. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the "Good German" narrator Zeitblom (who does not support the Nazis) – this is a somewhat odd use of the term "Good German". It usually has a distinctly negative connotation, referring to someone who turned a blind eye to the actions of the Nazi regime.
  • Removed per item below.
  • gone-to-bad – not "gone-bad"?
  • I'd probably have favoured "gone-to-the-bad" (British English), but let's try it your way.
  • he likens the "Good German" narrator Zeitblom (who does not support the Nazis) to one of "the Faithful" (like Elendil) among the gone-to-bad Númenóreans – this really has nothing to do with Fëanor or the Silmarils.
  • Trimmed for now. It's quite important in situating Tolkien's text in Ellison's European context. We can try it without, but I fear that readers will get lost as we jump from one thing to another in the paragraph.
  • this is the essence of the 'fallen world' in which we live – I don't think this link is appropriate per MOS:LINKQUOTE.
    • Um, we do rather need a link for this term, given that many readers will not be that close to the Old Testament nowadays. The alternative to linking in the quote here would be to add a discursive sentence purely to support the link; I think that's definitely worse than having the link in place.
      • I don't think the source is explicit enough about the intended meaning, and I frankly don't see why this part of the quote needs to be included in the first place. Again, maybe I'm missing something. TompaDompa (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you're missing is the spiritual or perhaps religious angle, or a scholar might call it mythic. Tolkien was a Roman Catholic. When he mentions "the fall" or "fallen" he is talking about the biblical fall, the world-changing disaster that necessitated the coming of Christ to fix. This is the core of Christianity, that Christ offered salvation to the fallen world. The essence of Morgoth and Fëanor is their prideful and fallen nature, resulting in the flood of evil, kinslaying, and constant war that afflicted Middle-earth. These things are not tangential to The Silmarillion, they are right at the centre. If Morgoth can be equated with Satan, the Devil, then Fëanor comes a close second as a Faust character, participating in and exemplifying pride-comes-before-a-fall, or should I say -before-The-Fall. To any Tolkien scholar, talking about the pride but not the fall would seem, well, a bit extraordinary, like talking about Icarus flying but not, er, falling. Or in Ellison's words, that form the first half of what I quote in the article, the creative and destructive forces in man's nature ... indivisibly linked; this is the essence of the 'fallen world' in which we live. The second half is explained by the first half; and the somewhat-Faustian nature of Fëanor, which Ellison agrees comes without a conscious pact with the devil, is that he chooses to have the creativity, to create the Silmarils, even though the price is both his own death and the destruction of the world of the Elves. It's the story of Thomas Mann's Leverkühn; and it is the whole story of The Silmarillion.
      • Those are all aspects I am familiar with, or at least aware of. On the other hand, I'm not familiar with Byrhtnoth at all, but that analysis is crystal clear to me in the way it's presented in this article. It should be possible to make Ellison's analysis equally clear—even to someone who is not familiar with Faust or even Christianity—shouldn't it? Maybe a diagram or table would be necessary to accomplish that, I don't know. Several other Tolkien articles use them to great effect, making what might otherwise be rather opaque to readers not already familiar with the topic easily accessible and understandable. TompaDompa (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok.
          • I think there's probably room for improvement, but I guess this will do for now. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tolkien calls Fëanor "fey"; Ellison notes that Tolkien analysed his own name as tollkühn, with the same meaning. – I daresay most readers will not know what either word means.
  • Linked 'fey' to wiktionary.
  • Further, Tolkien seems [...] in his lifetime. – this veers increasingly off-topic.
  • Cut down. Ellison's point is to draw parallels between Tolkien's mixed feelings and Fëanor's dangerous self-destructiveness.
  • The Faust image used is probably not the best choice. It emphasizes the deal with the devil a lot, which is an aspect that the accompanying text specifically points out does not have a Fëanorian parallel.
    • I hear your view here, but writing about or illustrating Faust necessarily implies Faustian-pact-with-the-devil, that's what the guy is known for. I don't think the image disproportionate. That said, if there's a different image you prefer, we can look at it.
      • I didn't have any better image in mind, no.
  • New comment: She identifying Fëanor's – grammar.
  • Fixed.
  • Added.

In popular culture[edit]

  • Yes, reworded.
  • Archived. It's the only kind of source that would be likely to interview a black metal band, and given the limited claim that's being made, basic facts, it's surely reliable enough.
  • All now removed, see above.
  • Blind Guardian's song "The Curse of Fëanor" – this song is not mentioned by the cited sources, though the album is.
  • OK, cited the media directly.
  • All now removed, see above.
  • lyricstranslate.com does not strike me as a reliable source.
  • All it's doing is making the original text available to non-Russian speakers. It is very unlikely to be making such things up, so it's reliable for this limited purpose.
  • All now removed, see above.

Summary[edit]

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. The prose is probably as clear as it's going to get within a reasonable time frame, and I don't think the relative lack of clarity in Ellison's analysis is worth holding this up indefinitely for.
    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 about the sources in the "In popular culture" section. Other than that, 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 and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably 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:
    I don't know, is it? The editing done by the other editor in late December rather consistently served to paint Fëanor in a more positive light. It might not be neutral from an in-universe perspective.
    We must not aim to be in-universe neutral: that would mean in-universe perspective, which is forbidden. To the extent that an editor attempted to enforce a point of view, that violates WP:NPOV and should be systematically undone.
    And so it has.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    In late December I would have said the article failed this criterion, but that has since subsided.
    Noted.
  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:
    Unsure about the specific Faust image used. I guess it'll do.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

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

Ping TompaDompa: I think we may have reached the finish line at last. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. See my comment about Fëanor's pride in the lead. TompaDompa (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that takes care of that. TompaDompa (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fëanor/GA1&oldid=1134353018"