Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this article isn't yet up to GA standards. I encourage the editors to consider my suggestions and continue to work to improve the article towards a possible renomination in the future. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Text box formatting is problematic at present. Also, some of the critical quotes are included in the article text
- Sorry - it's probably just because it's late at night (or early at morning!), but I've got no idea what you mean here. Can you elaborate? Thanks! 4u1e (talk)
- The current format is as follows: quote from LotR, quote from critic, footnote for critic's quote, citation for LotR quote. This is a problem because the quote and citation for LotR are separated. (Also, while a brief explanation of the quote is helpful (i.e. Saruman's death), a longer critical explanation is sometimes less so (i.e. Shippey suggests that Saruman represents a character 'eaten up inside' by his desires), especially where the critical quote is already in the article text.) Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MeS, the word "novel" is not the best choice to refer to LotRTarget audience: layman, someone who has heard of Sarumon but isn't a LotR fan. Therefore, Middle-earth is fine linked, doesn't need to be explained paranthetically, but TA should be spelled out or linkedIt seems odd to categorize Sarumon under henchmen and warlordsAlways use italics for book titlesWhy is Saruman the White the lead title when a) it's not the article title and b) it's not a consistent title? If it is kept, the "aliases" should be included in paranthesesIsn't Istari a race, not a title?
What's the meaning of "ambiguous" in the lead? Sarumon doesn't strike me as particularly ambiguous - can you elaborate?- Careful of ambiguity - for example, in a phrase like "serving him through his actions", the two male pronouns refer to two different characters, but that isn't clear here
Why is Immortal the date of birth? Sarumon died, so he isn't strictly immortal; do you mean that the date of birth is unknown, or that he was "created" in some way? Explain in a footnote if the term is kept
- Why do we need a date of birth at all? Saruman doesn't actually exist, so it seems to me to be inherently in-universe to assign a date of birth. 4u1e (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you want to get really picky, where does it say Saruman died? His body perished, certainly, but as Gandalf and Sauron have proved, that's not the end of the road for a Maia. 4u1e (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given that you provide a date of death, that would imply that he did "die" in some way, even if his spirit may continue. And my argument was not so much that you should have a definite date of birth, but that "Immortal" should not be used in the place for it. If you prefer, you can say "unknown" or "not applicable" (with an explanation in footnote), you can instead give "date of arrival in Middle-Earth" of something similar, or you can simply omit the date of birth (although you may which to again provide an explanation for readers). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually veering towards thinking that these infoboxes are a really bad idea: it feels to me that they treat the topic in an inherently in-universe fashion. I'll either fix or delete. If I delete, I'll clear it with WP:M-E. 4u1e (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Names and titles" section, so the infobox link leads nowhereSaruman means 'the one of cunning devices' in what language? Real or invented?
- Real, but since he was using a real language (Anglo-Saxon) in the same way that he used his invented languages (Elvish etc), the distinction's not all that important. The derivation is explained in the article, but is surely far too much detail for the lead? The key point is that Tolkien assigned a 'real' meaning to it. 4u1e (talk) 03:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in the first paragraph of "Concept" belongs in the second paragraph somewhereWhen referring to a single volume of LotR, be sure to specify which one. For example, which was published in 1955?
- Try to pare down on some of the run-on sentences
- Lots of them seem to have been dealt with in the editing. Further examples:
- "Marjorie Burns has written of a pattern of "doubles" in The Lord of the Rings: she identifies Saruman as a double of both his master or rival Sauron and of Gandalf, who resisted the temptation of the Ring and after his return from death says that he has become "Saruman as he should have been""
- His researches led him to believe that Sauron's One Ring might be found in the river Anduin and about 50 years before the start of The Lord of the Rings he helped the White Council drive Sauron from Dol Guldur to facilitate his own searches
- So would that be better as: "After his studies revealed that Sauron's One Ring might be found near
to Sauron's stronghold at Dol Guldur, he helped the White Council drive out Sauron in order to facilitate his own search"? 4u1e (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Better in terms of flow/structure (with minor changes), but leaves out some of the information that was previously included; you'll have to decide whether that information is important and possibly restructure the sentence to include it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I left out some of the information that was previously there - I've avoided the run-on sentence problem though, which was my primary concern. Sorry if I'm seeming dense, it's not something that's previously come up, so I want to make sure I understand what I'm dong to correct it! 4u1e (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elvish and Orkish are both proper nouns and should be capitalized (and probably linked on first appearance)Could use a few more internal links
Fictional characters who use magic is a parent category of Middle-earth wizards
Accuracy and verifiability
[edit]- All quotes must be cited, at the end of the sentence or earlier (especially where there is material between the quote and the next citation)
- Beware of WP:OR, especially in Themes
Footnote citations are generally separate from notes
- Not, I think, a GA criterion. But I agree it would be neater to separate them. :) 4u1e (talk)
- Referencing style should be more consistent
- Citations needed for:
- he is a key figure, despite appearing in only a few chapters
- Saruman means 'the one of cunning devices'
- Saruman is one of several ambiguous characters illustrating the corruption of power
- Tolkien tended to write in waves, proceeding so far before returning to rewrite, sometimes significantly, from the start.
- He had in this fashion produced a fairly complete version of the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring before Saruman appeared.
- arrived in Middle-earth 2000 years before the beginning of The Lord of the Rings
- sent to challenge Sauron by inspiring the people of Middle-earth rather than by direct conflict
- His hair is elsewhere described as having been black when he first arrived in Middle-earth
- "…he had deep darkling eyes … His hair and beard were white, but strands of black still showed around his lips and ears."
- Evil in The Lord of the Rings tends to be associated with machinery, whereas good is associated with nature. Both Saruman's stronghold of Isengard and his altered Shire demonstrate the negative effects of industrialization and Isengard is overthrown when the forests, in the shape of the Ents, literally rise against it.
- "hostile to industrialism"
- A frequent criticism of The Lord of the Rings is that all of its characters are either good or bad, with no shades of grey, a point to which Tolkien responded by proposing Saruman, along with Denethor and Boromir, as examples of characters with more nuanced loyalties.
- "Saruman as he should have been"
- has associations with both technology and treachery that are fitting for Tolkien's portrayal of Saruman
- Smith and Matthews suggest that Saruman's role is built up as a substitute for Sauron—the story's primary antagonist—who never appears directly in the book.
- a decision which "shocked" Lee
- Isn't "White Hand" another alternate name for Saruman?
- Used once only, I believe, by his orcs. The article has been criticised before for trying to list all names ever used in a crufty kind of way, so I'd definitely leave that one out! 4u1e (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 41 is broken
Duplicate citations should use the refname format for multiple use
No issues noted
- Multiple instances of WP:WTA (and a few WP:Weasel) violations - certain words introduce an editorial bias and should be avoided
- I've made some changes, but it would be useful to have your view on where problems remain. For example, there are some instances of 'note' that are not in opposition to anything, so it seems to me that the potential problem of it lending undue weight doesn't exist. Writing purely 'X said this. Y said that.' gets a little wearing! 4u1e (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples of remaining problems:
You say that evil "tends to be" associated with machinery, whereas good "is associated with" nature. Is there a difference of degree, as implied by this statement?Shippey seems to be given a bit more weight than the other critics
- He's written two full length books on the topic, more than any of the other sources I'm quoting. There's not that much mention of Saruman by critics, especially not those who write negatively on the book. Consequently there's just more material from him. His views do not contradict the majority of the other critics, so I don't think we have an WP:UNDUE issue here. 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Much-abused" is OR unless the book says this directly, in which case it should be in quotes
- Gone, although it seems a fair summary of what happens in ROTK: Saruman strikes or kicks Wormtongue (physical abuse) three times in about 5 pages and calls him idiot and worm (verbal abuse) a similar number of times. 4u1e (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a recent edit war, but it seems to have been resolved now
The second image is missing the fair-use rationale and the copyright information