Talk:Gondolin

Gondolin has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 6, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

This article was nominated for merging with The Fall of Gondolin on 26 November 2019. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Merge.

Archives

1

History

The material here derives in part from an article "The Fall of Gondolin" which was merged to the article of that name in 2019. However, the merge target The Fall of Gondolin is an article about the stand-alone book, the last one published by Christopher Tolkien, which collates the various versions of Tolkien's story about the city's fall. The book does not contain separate accounts of the city's language, or heraldry, or weapons: it isn't organised like that at all. Further, the book was published in 2018, whereas of the 9 scholarly sources cited in the article, 7 were published before 2018, and the other two reference Gondolin the city, not the book. In addition, the materials do not fit even slightly into a conventional "book article", with synopsis/contents, publication history, and a summary of the book's reception. I've therefore brought these "non-book" materials here, where they might be expected to be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sketch Map of Beleriand.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gondolin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

There are quite a few images. I would consider removing the Loback illustration for layout reasons.
- Done.

Lead

the betrayal of the city to Morgoth – I would gloss "Morgoth".
- Done.

the wedding of Tuor and Idril – Tuor has been glossed earlier in the paragraph as "a prince of Men". I would gloss Idril here, at first mention.
- Done.

City

I have re-added the map.
- Thanks.

I would gloss the key players at first mention after the lead. Turgon is glossed as King, Idril as Turgon's daughter, and Maeglin as Turgon's nephew, but neither Morgoth nor Tuor is glossed.
- Added.

Foundation – I would use "founding".
- Done.

The reference following "The city of Gondolin" seems like it should be an explanatory footnote instead, no?
- Formatted.

designed like the Noldor's former city – I would write "[...] the Noldor Elves' former city" to make it clearer to readers unfamiliar with Tolkien's works.
- Done.

Analysis

I have some comments I could make on the "Classical literature" subsection, but since I previously reviewed the corresponding Tolkien and the classical world#Gondolin-Troy subsection, the simplest solution for both of us would be to copy that subsection wholesale to resolve all of the issues at once. I think the only thing that would need to be altered from that version might perhaps be some duplicate links.
- Done.

the emblems of the houses of Gondolin are simply figurative – I initially parsed "simply figurative" as "purely figurative", but from reading the source ("both figurative [...] and straightforward") I gather the intended meaning is "simple and figurative"?
- Done.

depicting everyday objects – I don't know that the source really says that, and I wouldn't personally describe e.g. gemstones as such.
- Reworded.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
See above.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

C. It contains no original research:
See 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 outside of the "Classical literature" subsection.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No obvious neutrality issues.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2023 (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.