162:
definitely hostile to
Tolkien. Further, the text makes clear that Tolkien did have "conservative views about women", as seen both in his own cited statements and in the opinions of both femininist and non-feminist scholars. By the same token, the article is strenuously anti-bias; it presents and attributes views for, against, and in-between, and none of them are editorial. The article groups different opinions into subsections, but does not favour any of them. Far from defending Tolkien, it presents him warts and all as scholars and others have seen him. Some of that is certainly unflattering.
251:"I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the Knowledge article, not counting Tolkien's books and letters." Yes. You used this Knowledge page to write an essay. Knowledge is not a platform for personal essays and POV. "The goal of a Knowledge article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, 'just-the-facts style'. Articles should have an encyclopedic style with a formal tone instead of essay-like, argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing." (Cf.
348:
carefully; but anything is possible if there's consensus for it. The purpose of an encyclopedia article on a literary subject is to present the range of opinions that are held on it, as clearly and plainly as possible, which is what the article does. The "more general" articles are those further up the tree, starting with the article on
Tolkien himself; by the time the reader has reached an article on XYZ in book ABC, the reader will be aware that the subject has become a bit more specialised; that is the nature of a large topic with subtopics.
202:). This isn't something where one argues and wins in the Talk pages. It's something where the editorial community has come together and agreed on a set of policies that are used to decide which articles remain, how they are to be maintained, and what they should and should not cover. Please review the guidelines and amend your contributions as required. And don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status. Let others make that determination without any input or incentivization from you.
542:: This presents as a frivolous, possibly mischievous proposal (and that is the generous interpretation). If the OP is to be taken at face value, then they clearly do not grasp how an article can be assessed for balance or whether it is based on original research. The OP has not offered one concrete demonstration of where or how the article exhibits lack of balance or original research. They are wasting other editors time with wild, unsubstantiated accusations, and the thread should be closed. —
437:
trying to exclude all non-literary matters would make sense. We could repeat citations in the background section, but frankly it's fine for a background/context to give the background of the rest of the discussion; this is actually part of what you were asking for, namely to make the context of the article clear so that more general readers could find their way in. Making the article context-free, more technical and more specialised would make the article much less readable for general readers.
469:
is completely irrelevant. If anything, the proposals by the nominator would ruin the neutrality; the title "Literary
Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings" suggests a bias and would also change the scope of the article. I guess the article could include Tolkien's all-male background (if commentators do actually use it in the context of this article's subject) but such an issue is by no means reason for a full out GAR.
194:). It's true you've added a few citations, but Knowledge is not a community for shared research and essays. The Tolkien and Middle-earth articles have been egregious victims of misguided editing in the past. They were once part of a featured series of articles that the broader editor community eventually deleted because it was inappropriate fan material. Your contributions constitute a pattern of Disruptive Editing (Cf.
523:
within the text. If there are a significant number of prominent yet absent opinions, or if any of the existing opinions are being misinterpreted here, that would be a cause for concern, but no evidence of such has been provided. If such evidence does emerge, I would suggest first initiating a discussion on the matter on the talkpage, so it can be added, rather than jumping to GAR.
408:
literary criticism then this section should include references to literary criticism that address his background (and how it may have influenced women in the story). Citing
Tolkien's own works doesn't contribute toward such a discussion. On the other hand, if the article is revised to only describe the women in the story then this entire section should be removed.
175:; b) there are 59 citations from a wide variety of sources; authors include journalists and scholars of different disciplines, while primary (Tolkien-dependent) material is carefully separated; c) the statements made in the article are all attributed to named scholars, so there is no editorial opinion in the article.
522:
Reading through I had a few moments where I didn't feel the tone was that encyclopaedic (eg. A question as a header), and the split between "powerful" and "ordinary" does not feel like the right wording, but I'm not seeing any original research. A lot of outside commentators are explicitly referenced
281:
Looking up sources and using them is the normal way to expand an article. The article does not present an editorial opinion (I didn't, and don't, have one on the matter), but presents and summarizes published opinion fairly, clearly, and accurately, with full attribution. The article does not promote
468:
Sorry, but this GAR is nonsense. Just from skimming the article it appears especially neutral and uses a wide variety of opinions from different scholars. I'm not left feeling particularly inclined to agree with one side or the other and whatever "in that most of it was written by one person" means,
312:
The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. The article as written does not meet
Knowledge guidelines for Good Article status. Nor should it remain in its current state as it doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedic article. It needs revision. At the very least, you have the option
228:
instructions to nominate articles one has worked on, indeed it's the usual approach. Finally, it is inappropriate and uncivil to accuse me of "incentivization" of any other editor - I've never offered anybody any sort of inducement, and you should not be casting aspersions of that or any other kind.
347:
Obviously I don't agree with that, but since each sentence in the article expresses the opinion of some or other scholar or commentator, scaling some of them back would risk unbalancing the article and introducing accidental bias towards whatever is left, so any such move would have to be made very
219:
No, an essay has a goal, and an essayist selects materials and speaks in his or her own voice to persuade readers of that one thing. I have not just added "a few citations"; I've read, paraphrased, and cited about 50 books and journal articles for the
Knowledge article, not counting Tolkien's books
426:
Happy to rename if people think that's best. However "Literary criticism of" implies this is purely literary, which isn't the case; for a start it's in newspapers and
Tolkien journals too, and debated by feminists and by Christian authors as well as by literary scholars. So we'd need to be sure we
436:
The background of
Tolkien in an all-male environment is plainly relevant, not least because multiple commentators and scholars have mentioned it as a major factor. Since (per the paragraph above) I doubt that reframing the article to be purely literary would be a good idea, I similarly doubt that
407:
For literary criticism of the characters, the "Tolkien's
Background" section is inappropriate. This is the element that constitutes the strongest defense of Tolkien and original research. Keeping in mind that the article should appeal to the broader community, if the article is revised to address
373:
I'm completely willing to fix anything that's misleading, difficult to read, or whatever, if you'll tell me what exactly needs doing. As it stands, it presents the facts clearly and neutrally. Since most of what has been written on the subject is by scholars, we can't avoid expressing scholarly
124:
This article does not represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, it appears to constitute original research, in that most of it was written by one person. Knowledge is not an appropriate platform for idolizing authors and the article appears to be strongly biased toward a defense of J.R.R.
488:: The page adheres to all of the GA criteria. The re-assessment opener makes some serious allegations of disruptive editing that are left entirely unsupported. Furthermore, statements like "don't propose your own contributions for Good Article status" display a lack of knowledge regarding the
399:
I'd start with the article title. Instead of "Women in The Lord of the Rings", I suggest "Literary
Criticism of Women in the Lord of the Rings". The original article title would be better used to list female characters in The Lord of the Rings (but I don't think such articles are permitted on
161:
Neutrality, including "idolizing authors" and bias towards a defense of J.R.R. Tolkien's fiction against criticisms: I'd be curious to know what in the article constituted "idolization", as the text presents and attributes by name many scholars' and other people's points of view, some of them
171:(OR) in Knowledge policy. It doesn't matter how many editors are involved; the key is that OR is characterised by an editor's invention rather than the accurate use of cited sources. Colleagues will note that a) the article is fully cited, i.e. every statement is cited to a
411:
The section about "A Role for Women" is suitable for an article about literary criticism of women in the story. It's not suitable for an article describing the female characters (which as I stated above, I don't believe would be accepted by the Knowledge
255:) Now, that's not a policy page, but good Knowledge articles follow that guidance. A good article doesn't document every detail that is important to 1 author. A good article provides a framework of information that is useful to the broader community.
128:
I have elected to use the community reassessment path as the purpose of reassessment is to help improve articles. If the failure to create and maintain a neutral point of view can be resolved, then that will meet community standards (in my opinion).
224:, whether they favour Tolkien or not. It is wholly inappropriate of you to suggest that creating and citing one or more articles on a topic is disruptive; indeed, it's the opposite, it's the purpose of Knowledge. It is entirely in line with the
99:: Keep. There's a clear consensus that the article meets the GA criteria. However, some editors did make suggestions for improvement (see in particular CMD's comments below) which could be taken into account when improving the article.
282:
anything, nor does it favour any particular scholar or opinion, but presents all of them plainly and concisely. Both of us seem to have stated our positions repeatedly now, so it may be best to wait see what others think.
69:
65:
50:
42:
90:
404:). A secondary category for female characters might be accepted - especially as there is a large category of female characters in literature.
551:
532:
515:
478:
459:
383:
322:
291:
264:
238:
211:
198:) because you're using these articles to advocate your own point of view (thus also violating the Neutral Point of View principle - Cf.
184:
138:
117:
58:
17:
498:
it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources
450:). Since it's not a list article, discussing what roles women play in the book, as understood by commentators, is certainly relevant.
190:
This article is essentially a personal essay expressing unsubstantiated opinions. That violates the Original Research principle (Cf.
447:
35:
313:
of scaling back some of your contributions to make the article more general and informative to the broader reading audience.
374:
opinion; but I've been careful to be as simple and clear as possible, and am happy to adjust anything you find difficult.
106:
417:
318:
260:
207:
134:
528:
455:
379:
287:
234:
180:
446:
The article doesn't just describe the female characters (that would be a list article, and we already have
500:" (my emphasis). This reassessment should be closed before Chiswick's time is wasted one minute longer.
413:
314:
256:
203:
130:
547:
401:
167:"Original research" because "most of it was written by one person": this is not the definition of
524:
451:
375:
283:
230:
176:
509:
151:
102:
566:
543:
493:
474:
221:
199:
191:
560:
502:
489:
225:
195:
172:
168:
400:
Knowledge). There is already a category page listing characters in the story (Cf.
427:
had a better title; the current title has the merit of simplicity and neutrality.
147:
111:
470:
146:
I created the article; it has been contributed to, quite substantially, by
229:
I've no idea why you are speaking in that way, but it is not collegiate.
252:
154:. To reply to Michael Martinez's points briefly but I hope clearly:
496:: "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although
402:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:The_Lord_of_the_Rings_characters
200:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
192:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:No_original_research
85:
77:
46:
150:, and was reviewed, thoroughly and systematically, by
196:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing
220:and letters. It presents many points of view
8:
253:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Purpose
125:Tolkien's fiction against criticisms.
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
448:List of Middle-earth characters
86:Watch article reassessment page
28:Women in The Lord of the Rings
1:
583:
492:process. Quoting from the
552:07:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
533:10:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
516:02:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
479:00:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
460:20:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
384:20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
323:19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
292:19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
265:19:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
239:19:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
212:19:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
185:19:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
139:18:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
118:11:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
91:Most recent review
494:first instruction
169:Original Research
574:
514:
512:
506:
414:Michael Martinez
315:Michael Martinez
257:Michael Martinez
204:Michael Martinez
131:Michael Martinez
114:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
582:
581:
577:
576:
575:
573:
572:
571:
557:
556:
510:
504:
501:
173:Reliable Source
112:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
580:
578:
570:
569:
559:
558:
555:
554:
536:
535:
519:
518:
482:
481:
465:
464:
463:
462:
441:
440:
439:
438:
431:
430:
429:
428:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
244:
243:
242:
241:
188:
187:
164:
163:
158:
157:
156:
155:
122:
121:
120:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
579:
568:
565:
564:
562:
553:
549:
545:
541:
538:
537:
534:
530:
526:
521:
520:
517:
513:
508:
507:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
483:
480:
476:
472:
467:
466:
461:
457:
453:
452:Chiswick Chap
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
435:
434:
433:
432:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
419:
415:
409:
405:
403:
385:
381:
377:
376:Chiswick Chap
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
324:
320:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
293:
289:
285:
284:Chiswick Chap
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
240:
236:
232:
231:Chiswick Chap
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
186:
182:
178:
177:Chiswick Chap
174:
170:
166:
165:
160:
159:
153:
149:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
136:
132:
126:
119:
116:
115:
108:
104:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
539:
503:
497:
490:Good article
485:
410:
406:
398:
226:Good Article
189:
152:Amitchell125
127:
123:
110:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
412:community).
47:visual edit
544:Epipelagic
222:neutrally
561:Category
505:Tkbrett
70:history
51:history
37:Article
567:GAR/66
148:Haleth
113:buidhe
97:Result
471:Aza24
79:Watch
16:<
548:talk
540:Keep
529:talk
486:Keep
475:talk
456:talk
418:talk
380:talk
319:talk
288:talk
261:talk
235:talk
208:talk
181:talk
135:talk
66:edit
43:edit
525:CMD
511:(✉)
563::
550:)
531:)
477:)
458:)
420:)
382:)
321:)
290:)
263:)
237:)
210:)
183:)
137:)
109:)
105:·
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
546:(
527:(
473:(
454:(
416:(
378:(
317:(
286:(
259:(
233:(
206:(
179:(
133:(
107:c
103:t
101:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.