184:- Welcome. I'm used to working with reviewers of different kinds, have taken hundreds of articles through the process, and I respond promptly to requests for changes; almost anything can be reshaped and developed if GAN shows it to be necessary. Your starting remarks make me wonder whether you understand the GAN process? - if not, please read the instructions and familiarize yourself with the criteria; I'll do my best to assist you as well as to deal with your concerns. Now, to this article: I am confident that this article is carefully written and thoroughly referenced (the lead, as usual, relies on the citations in the text, so the references are not repeated there, but EVERYTHING is cited). As for the "recent changes ... by ", this is usual and a mark of hard work, not of low quality - the idea is that one builds an article from reliable sources, and if those express differing opinions, one notes and cites those, so that the reader gets an idea of the topic and the scholarship that underlies it. In this case, the concept of "legendarium" has been defined more tightly or more loosely, and the article carefully explains that fact, which is central to the topic.
480:
is good reason for those; other editors are at all times free to revert or comment; if they revert, then a talk page discussion begins, which usually resolves the matter. This is called the BRD cycle, for Bold-Revert-Discuss, and it is how we normally work. It is also normal for editors who feel they have brought an article up to a good standard to propose it as a Good
Article Nomination, which of course brings it to a wider audience for review and improvement; there is nothing non-neutral about that, it's just saying "I worked on this, does it now meet the criteria?". This is entirely appropriate; if you don't like the process, feel free to fail it now.
517:, but saying that is not enough to make it true – you need to provide specific examples of a lack of neutrality. Another critique from Michael is that the article has a lack of references. This article includes a well organized bibliography, and I see only three sentences or paragraphs that do not end with a citation. If I were reviewing this article, I would require citations to be added in those areas before passing the review, but I would not fail it outright for that. On the whole, this article is well referenced. If you think that is not true, again, you need to provide
207:) and consider how your contributions don't align with Knowledge's intentions. The fact you're editing articles that have attracted little interest from many other contributors doesn't mean you can organize everything as you see fit. You should be commenting about your intentions to edit articles on the Talk pages so that others have a chance to comment and guide you on the process.
255:). These differences aren't the result of gradual evolution and correction through a process of community contributions. The current article does not meet Good Article guidelines, and that you were the principal author of the most recent changes to the article that gave it the current form conflicts with your proposal for Good Article status. This isn't how Knowledge works.
42:
251:). If you browse the articles, you'll see they are very different from the way you have rewritten the Legendarium article. Merely throwing in citations doesn't mask the fact that you're presenting your personal point of view. The article as it appeared prior to your many edits was very different from what you've constructed in recent months (Cf.
432:
neutral, explaining the meanings of "legendarium" as used both by
Tolkien himself and by different scholars; I have no preference for any one of those meanings, and have no point of view of my own on the subject, other than that it was interesting to learn more about it, so no guideline or policy has been violated.
525:
wrote much of this article himself is not an indication of any wrongdoing. In fact, it's far from it; many of
Knowledge's best written articles were written largely by only a single editor. It is typical for an editor to stumble upon a poorly written page and improve it to GA status. Michael, as this
479:
Once again, if an article is weakly-structured, lacks detail, lacks citations, or has other technical issues, then it is normal for editors who are willing to volunteer to work on the article to make any changes that may seem to be necessary. It is also fine for editors to make bold changes if there
461:
The problem here is that you completely rewrote the article to represent your point of view. It's not neutral. Nor did you discuss these changes in the Talk page before making extensive deletions and rewriting the article. Those changes might survive scrutiny over time (or not) but proposing your
388:
Yes, this IS the review for the Good
Article proposal. And while there is no minimum requirement for discussion and review of an article prior to nominating it for Good Article status, it's clear and obvious this article is the work of largely 1 person. The lack of a neutral point of view is the
431:
It is normal for articles at GAN to be the work of any number of editors, including just one; indeed, many more specialized topics in all parts of
Knowledge are basically the work of single editors; that is not a problem for policy, and has no bearing on neutrality. This article is scrupulously
224:
The article is fully cited (referenced) to reliable sources, except for the lead which per policy summarizes the cited text below, so there is no "lack of references" in the article. A GAN is not the place for a reviewer to comment on another editor's behaviour, that is inappropriate and
166:
This article is not a good candidate. Many recent changes have been made by the person who nominated the article. The article itself makes numerous statements of fact - contradicting previous article assertions - without providing references. The point of view is not
349:
first. Feel free to say what you think needs to be improved, according to the GA criteria, and I'll do my best to fix whatever needs fixing, restructure whatever needs restructuring, add whatever needs adding; and feel free to ask for a second opinion.
202:
My opening comment is quite precise about the lack of references. Your activity on the
Tolkien articles is highly unusual behavior. You don't appear to understand what neutral point of view is. I recommend you review that page (Cf.
187:
Please let me know what, in detail, needs to be improved, based on the GA criteria, and I'll work on those things. Alternatively, if you don't want to proceed, let me know and we can start the process over.
281:
OK, I see we don't agree; it's normal and fine to look out scholarly sources on an article and expand it. The article was formally and independently reviewed at GA. Let's see what other editors think.
47:
311:
Based on the minimal discussion (and the minimal number of participants in the discussion), it's obvious the article was not properly reviewed for Good
Article status.
126:
80:
122:
70:
389:
greatest problem with the article. The complete rewrite of the earlier article in order to present a specific point of view violates
Knowledge's guidelines.
52:
107:
225:
unacceptable, but I'll just say this: it is entirely usual for an editor to work intensively on an area (say, Military history), often for many years.
99:
156:
345:
This IS the review for Good
Article status; there is no requirement for preceding discussion, though (mainly for FAC) editors sometimes go to
527:
75:
17:
115:
462:
rewrite for Good
Article status is inappropriate. Knowledge is not a platform for rewarding one's own contributions.
467:
394:
316:
260:
212:
172:
150:
497:
As an outside observer who stumbled on this review, I'd like to provide a fresh perspective. Reading through
485:
437:
355:
286:
230:
193:
92:
498:
463:
390:
346:
312:
256:
208:
181:
168:
146:
526:
is your first time doing a review, I think it would be beneficial for you to reach out to one of the
522:
481:
433:
351:
282:
226:
189:
539:
506:
545:
489:
471:
441:
398:
359:
320:
290:
264:
234:
216:
197:
176:
160:
514:
502:
204:
532:
253:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tolkien%27s_legendarium&oldid=1002107343
248:
247:
Here is a Knowledge page that indexes articles about literary terminology (Cf.
501:'s critiques, I think that they display an unfamiliarity with the
513:. I see several references above to the article not adhering to
511:
state what is needed to bring the article up to standard
205:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
252:
134:
103:
249:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Glossary_of_literary_terms
509:what criteria the page does not meet and then
8:
30:
61:
33:
7:
24:
521:examples. Lastly, the fact that
18:Talk:Tolkien's legendarium
1:
561:
546:01:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
490:20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
472:20:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
442:20:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
399:20:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
360:19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
321:19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
291:19:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
265:19:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
235:19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
217:18:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
198:18:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
177:18:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
161:17:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
503:Good Article criteria
528:Good article mentors
89:
88:
552:
544:
542:
536:
507:needs to explain
499:Michael Martinez
464:Michael Martinez
391:Michael Martinez
313:Michael Martinez
257:Michael Martinez
209:Michael Martinez
182:Michael Martinez
169:Michael Martinez
147:Michael Martinez
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
560:
559:
555:
554:
553:
551:
550:
549:
540:
534:
531:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
558:
556:
495:
494:
493:
492:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
347:WP:Peer Review
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
240:
239:
238:
237:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
557:
548:
547:
543:
538:
537:
529:
524:
523:Chiswick Chap
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
491:
487:
483:
482:Chiswick Chap
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
443:
439:
435:
434:Chiswick Chap
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
400:
396:
392:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
361:
357:
353:
352:Chiswick Chap
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
292:
288:
284:
283:Chiswick Chap
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
236:
232:
228:
227:Chiswick Chap
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
200:
199:
195:
191:
190:Chiswick Chap
185:
183:
179:
178:
174:
170:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
533:
518:
510:
496:
460:
201:
186:
180:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
505:. A review
104:visual edit
530:for help.
515:neutrality
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
519:specific
167:neutral.
157:contribs
76:Criteria
535:Tkbrett
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
486:talk
468:talk
438:talk
395:talk
356:talk
317:talk
287:talk
261:talk
231:talk
213:talk
194:talk
173:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
541:(✉)
488:)
470:)
440:)
397:)
358:)
319:)
289:)
263:)
233:)
215:)
196:)
175:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
484:(
466:(
436:(
393:(
354:(
315:(
285:(
259:(
229:(
211:(
192:(
171:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.