User:Pineapple Storage/Discussions/Content

---

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

Nominator: PharyngealImplosive7 (talk · contribs) 15:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pineapple Storage Looking forward to working on this! Just two tips that I have noticed new reviewers sometimes struggle with:

1. It's a good idea to structure your review based on the criteria. Different reviewers do this in different ways. Some use the templates linked in the "GA toolbox" on the right, others just create section headings based on the criteria. I personally think the clearest way to do it is with this (feel free to copy+paste) or a similar structure, but you are free to use if you would like.
2. It's a good idea to keep track of how you evaluated the criteria as you go along, even if you find no issues. It means others can see you are checking everything, and allows you to keep track of the review better. For example, when evaluating the scope/broadness (criterion 3), you might write "The structure appears to follow the same structure as other GA and FA articles on this topic. I see no major omitted areas".

IAWW (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IAWW, thank you for these tips! I was actually just about to add TM:GAList2, so I will add the template below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Great, I look forward to your comments. IAWW (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the review! This is also my first GA nomination. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pineapple Storage You are reviewing really well. I added a few thoughts below, but you are doing a great job of checking every criteria and engaging well with the content of the article. Feel free to keep pinging me when relevant. IAWW (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm relieved to hear it's not going too badly, as I've actually been quite enjoying it (apart from the frustration of there not being as many sources available as we would like, because it's such a small language). Thank you for your feedback below, it's really helpful to hear your thoughts—especially on some of the more nuanced criteria! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @It is a wonderful world! I'm just checking in, as I'm aware I've done quite a bit of editing of the article since I started the review—so much so that my Xtools authorship is now 25.8% (even though I've mainly been copyediting and rearranging, rather than actually writing new content). I've had another look through the GAN instructions and done a quick search in the discussion archives, but I haven't been able to find any advice specifically on the issue of what to do if a reviewer becomes a "significant contributor" to the article during the review. WP:GAN/I#R2 says reviewers can't have made significant contributions to the article prior to the review, which I hadn't, but because I'm so interested in languages and linguistics, I've been able and willing to actually work on improving the article during the review, as opposed to remaining detached and exclusively noting areas in need of improvement on the review page. Do you think there would be consensus for me carrying on the review despite this? Or should I step back and allow someone else to review it now that I'm a significant contributor? Apologies if this is a silly question and/or there's a super obvious answer to this that I've missed, but I just wanted to clarify and make sure I'm okay to proceed. Either way, I think for my next review I will try and choose an article in a topic area I know less about and am less interested in! :) Thank you, and sorry this turned into such a long message! Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a good question. I think in this case it is fine, because I'm also checking the review. >25% is quite a lot though, and you would generally want to request a third opinion particularly on the parts you have been involved in. IAWW (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay thank you for this! Yes, this is what I was thinking; if the review hadn't already had your oversight, I would definitely have looked to get a second/third opinion! Your feedback and guidance have been essential so thank you very much again for generously offering your time. I hope you've found the process/article interesting too! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Subst-ing template in advance of making initial notes. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Is it well written? Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think some of the detailed linguistic discussion could be a bit more accessible to a wide audience. Explaining a few technical terms might make for easier reading. Most of the technical terms are already wikilinked, which is great, but a non-specialist reader would likely not want to have to click on every single term they don't understand in order just to understand the sentence; I'm quite experienced with linguistics and have studied languages at degree level, and I found it challenging to keep track of the § Grammar section given how many wikilinks I was having to follow (or add in). It might be an idea to add brief explanations to the most important important technical terms for each topic, especially ones that are repeated several times (eg. marginal in § Consonants, coda in § Syllable structure, headedness and attested in § Word order, etc). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've tried to add more definitions for technical terms. Let me know if anything else is too technical or unclear. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's great, I think those have made a difference! Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on WP:MTAU for this article? (Especially if you don't have loads of experience in linguistics!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hello! I certainly do not have loads of experience in linguistics, and WP:MTAU is definitely a big and relevant consideration for this article. I originally was going to read through this section an tell you all the ways I was confused, which is often the best approach, but I don't think it is best in this scenario because I think it would take too much explaining to make this understandable to your average layperson. Note the GA criteria says it should be "understandable to an appropriately broad audience", and in this case I think an appropriately broad audience at least for the more technical parts of the article would include people who have at least some experience with linguistics. However, I still think this has some improvements to be made in this regard:

   • Write one level down. This means the article should be understandable to @Pineapple Storage, who has studied language at a degree level, but not necessarily understandable to me, without me having to follow several links.
   • Add concrete examples – Nahuatl seems to do this quite well. If you can source some concrete examples, they would really help.
   • Try to avoid explaining everything in a parenthetical like this: "The language primarily uses postpositions, though at least one preposition (the comitative) is attested (or that we have evidence of such a feature existing), and a locative suffix is attested." It makes the sentences very un-concise and makes them harder to follow. Where the terms are used just once or twice, either cut the technical term(s) completely, or leave them as a link. If the term is used several times, then an explanation is appropriate, which could be done in a parenthetical.

   @PharyngealImplosive7 Could you go through the article and especially the "grammar" section with these points in mind, and then Pineapple and I can read through to see whether it is understandable enough? IAWW (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've done a bit of expansion and explanation in § Syllable structure (diff) and § Verbs (diff), but other subsections still need a look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage and It is a wonderful world: I have tried to improve the grammar section; tell me if anything is still unclear or too technical. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Looks great to me! The clarifications you've put in really help, and as there are plenty of wikilinks I think it should work well for most readers. What do you think @It is a wonderful world? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes I think it looks much better. I could not understand the first subsection of the Grammar section at all earlier, but I can follow it a lot better now. It is weird that that subsection is the only one with examples though. Are there any other examples available for the other subsections? IAWW (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: The noun section seems pretty self-explanatory to me, but I could add examples there. I also have added one example of serial verb constructions to the verbs subsection. Let me know if you would prefer any more examples anywhere else, as Kjelsvik (2002) has plenty. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @PharyngealImplosive7 Do any sources support the opinion that the phonetic inventory is "large"? If not, that specific opinion should be removed IAWW (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Sorry, just realized I replied to the wrong comment with this. I meant to reply to the lead discussion. IAWW (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: An average phonetic inventory is around 20-30 consonants as per WALS (large (34 or more consonants)). Considering that this language has well over 60 different consonants, I think it is safe to assume that it has a large inventory. Not sure if this qualifies as WP:OR, but I think its fine. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Unfortunately this is not fine as it is OR IAWW (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   This should be fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Kjelsvik (2002) p. 9 says The Nizaa language has a fairly complex phonology and tonology, so I think it would be reasonable to put in the lead Nizaa has a complex phonology, with over 60 consonant phonemes ... or similar, and then back this up with further info and a citation (^[1]) in § Phonology and orthography. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've gone ahead and said that it has a complex system of phonology and cited that in the phonology section. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   Layout — Section headers: for clarity, and consistency with other language articles,^[2] it might be good to retitle § Phrases as 'Sample text' or 'Example text'. This would also mean that a 'Phrases' section could be used to discuss eg. idioms, if this aspect of the language is discussed in future sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I renamed it to 'Sample text'. I got the idea of naming it 'phrases' originally from Taa language#Phrases, but I agree that it doesn't seem quite right. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Lead section — Summarising body text: I feel like at the moment the lead section doesn't really summarise the rest of the article, as it introduces several different pieces of information that aren't repeated later on. Would there be any way to expand this info into its own section(s) and have more of an overview in the lead? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   A few options to consider:

   • § State of the language as in Erromintxela language
   • § Classification and § Geographic distribution as in Czech language and Khmer language
   • § Population and § Geographic distribution as in American Sign Language

   Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've added a 'Geographical distribution and population' section as well as expanded the lead. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The lead section needs some work, but I'll stay out of the discussion for now as you guys are improving it well. IAWW (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Now that @PharyngealImplosive7 has expanded it and I moved the footnotes into the body (mainly to § Geographical distribution and population), I think it feels much more lead-y. Would you agree @IAWW? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes it is looking better. My biggest concern is that most of the second paragraph does not appear to be supported by the body. E.g. "as well as a rich system of tones" and "Nizaa also has a rich system of kinship terminology, with different words being used for different levels of respect". Although some examples exist in the body, these strong statements do not appear to be supported. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Additionally, it could do with some expansion. IAWW (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: I have tried to remove the strong statements you mentioned as well as slightly expanding it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The language was not extensively studied before the 1990s, when Christian missionaries Rolf Theil Endresen and Bjørghild Kjelsvik, began to document the language. This is interesting, and would be good to include in the body (along with a source), but at the moment it's new (and unsourced) information in the lead, so could probably do with a revisit? Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I've created a dedicated § History section expanding on this. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Love the idea of a history section! My only concern is the use of "Christian missionaries", given that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik don't seem to use the term to describe themselves. For instance, there's a chance that they were just language enthusiasts looking for a way to work with the speaker communities of the languages they were studying, and that Christian mission organisations were the only ones that provided this kind of opportunity in Central Africa/Cameroon at the time, and that as part of this work they were expected to translate the Bible. (Even today, SIL Global—an evangelical Christian organisation, ie. originally a Christian mission—is both the registration authority for ISO 639-3 and the publisher of Ethnologue.) Alternatively, it could be that they are/were actually "Christian missionaries", but would object to the use of the term... etc. Do you see where I'm coming from? It might be worth replacing "Christian missionaries" with (eg.) "Norwegian linguists"; you've mentioned their work with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon so the connection has very much been made, even without using the term "Christian missionaries", which isn't explicitly backed up by the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: Yeah, I totally understand. I have changed the wording to reflect that. I also have done some rough machine translations of the French (and used my knowledge of Spanish) to add some information to the article using Endresen (1991). Could you also quickly review if the translations are accurate to ensure the sources are being represented accurately please? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yep that all looks good! All pretty much accurate, as far as I can tell. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: Any more suggestions for the lead? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hi @PharyngealImplosive7, Nice work. "Nizaa has a complex phonetic inventory" is now fine as it is sourced. I don't see where "60 consonant phonemes" (shouldn't it be 65?) and "its grammar is similar to most other Mambiloid languages" are supported in the body. IAWW (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've done some tweaking to the § Documentation section, as I found this source that says:

   Rolf Theil Endresen at Oslo University was appointed Associate Professor of African Languages (Hausa, Fulfulde) in 1978 and Professor of African Languages in 1994. Around 2000, the position was changed to Professor of General and African Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy (currently Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies) of the Historical-Philosophical faculty. Endresen studied varieties of Fulfulde and the Bantoid Nizaa (Cameroon). The study on phonology included, for example, Nizaa, Kafa, and Koorete. He carried out grammatical studies on Fulfulde and Subiya. Endresen supervised nine PhD students, seven of them from Africa, before retiring in 2017.

   As neither this summary, nor any of his 'Acknowledgements' sections that I can see, mention any Christian missionary organisations, it looks like he might not be associated with any; meanwhile, I also found this profile of Bjørghild Kjelsvik as an associate professor at NLA University College, which is a Christian (again, specifically Lutheran) college. For me this reinforces the idea that Theil Endresen and Kjelsvik didn't necessarily share the same affiliations, other than Theil Endresen's supervision of Kjelsvik's research at the University of Oslo. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   (Just to be clear, I made these tweaks in my capacity as a Wikipedia editor, not as part of the GA review! Feel free to change any of my edits back if you disagree with them/think they're unnecessary/etc.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @It is a wonderful world: I've tweaked the lead to say 65 phonemes instead of 60 and have removed the similarity with the Mambiloid languages part. ANny final suggestions or do you think the lead is good now? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think it is good to go! IAWW (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Layout — Section headers: Currently, § Kinship is within the § Grammar section; would it be better in a separate § Vocabulary section? (Could this be another opportunity for some more examples, per IAWW's feedback above?) Also, would it be worth rearranging the sections so that § Name is before § Geographical distribution and population? This would make it more consistent with articles like Erromintxela language; still, I'm not sure whether it's right for this article, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts @PharyngealImplosive7. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   There are no examples in the Kjelsvik (2008) source of any sentences or phrases using that terminology, so we can't really add any examples there. I don't think it would be right to create a separate "vocabulary" section only talking about kinship, which is why I kept it in the grammar section. I moved the "name" section up as you said. @Pineapple Storage: Any further thoughts? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   In terms of examples for a potential § Vocabulary section, I meant it might be good to see if there are any other types of vocabulary—aside from kinship terminology—that have been discussed by sources and might be unusual/unique to Nizaa. I had a quick look through Kjelsvik-2002 but soon got bogged down in the ins and outs of interlinear glossing (and went down a rabbit-hole learning how to use Template:Interlinear!) so unfortunately I can't give you any examples straight away, but I will try and have another look. Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Now that there's more info about the speaker community in § Geographical distribution and population, do you think it might be worth retitling this section § Demography and distribution (as in Nahuatl, for instance)? Also, given that § History currently only describes the history of the study/documentation of the language, as opposed to the history of the language itself, would it be an idea to title this section § Documentation? These are only suggestions, of course; I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Sure; I have gone ahead and implemented your suggestions. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: Any further suggestions or is this good to go? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Just noting than I am happy for this to pass as long as Pineapple is. You two have worked really well together during this review, and a I just took a quick gloss of the parts of the article I could understand, and it seems like GA status to me. Nice work! IAWW (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yep, I'm happy to pass the article as well. See below :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   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): Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Most sources definitely but the source with by far the most citations is Kjelsvik (2002)^[3] which has 190 pages, so it's much harder to verify statements than it would be in, for instance, a short journal article. It would be good to include a few different refs to this source specifically, each with page numbers relevant to the sections/statements they're supporting; Template:Sfn might be helpful for this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Added SFNs for all the mentions of Kjelsvik (2002) besides the first one, with page numbers. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Great work! Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Per WP:TSI: for paragraphs which cite a single source, refs can just be at the end of the paragraph, but there are a couple of paragraphs (eg. in § Consonants, § Nouns and pronouns, § Verbs) where multiple citations are at the end of the paragraph, but they don't all contain all the information in the paragraph. (I got a bit stuck with § Vowels and have ended up duplicating ref 2 as I don't have access to it so can't verify whether it supports the first two sentences of the paragraph, just the last sentence, or both.) It might be good to separate out citations where they each support different parts of the paragraph? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @PharyngealImplosive7 I've now done a pretty comprehensive/in-depth spot-check of all references (with the exception of TheilEndresen-1991, due to the paywall) and aside from one WP:TSI issue (tagged, in § Verbs) it's all looking great, so once that's sorted I think this criterion will be a strong  ! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   Every paragraph cites a reliable source, so no original research as far as I can tell. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The § Name section is closely paraphrased from Blench (1993) p.108^[4] and there's currently no precise ref to the source text (ref 8 just points to the Glottolog entry for the citation, not to the text itself). This has also meant that there's a duplication of pejorative in that section, so this might need rewording. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I've now added the expanded Blench ref which includes a link to the source text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   There are a few bits of close paraphrasing from Kjelsvik (2002)^[3] and Kjelsvik (2008)^[5] in § Phonology and orthography and § Grammar. This might be one cause of the WP:MTAU difficulties mentioned above in point 1A; for both of these reasons, I think it might be a good idea to find ways to reword parts of these sections. It would also be good to double-check that there isn't too much close paraphrasing from Theil Endresen (1991);^[6] I would check but unfortunately I don't have access. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Both of these have been fixed to the best of my ability. Especially in more niche fields like phonology, it is kind of hard to preserve the meaning of the source without using similar language to it. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I totally understand! Yep, it's definitely tricky to avoid when there are so few synonyms for the technical terms! Good work on your latest edits tweaking the wording away from the sources; I feel like it runs a bit more smoothly now so this was well done. @It is a wonderful world, do you have any thoughts on close paraphrasing from a Wikipedia policy point of view? Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think the check you did is really good here. As long as no full sentences or extended phrases are used, then you should be fine because most the content is just facts (WP:FACTSONLY). IAWW (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's great, thank you. In that case, I'm happy with the copyright status at the moment; I'll finalise closer to the end of the review. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Given @PharyngealImplosive7's great work rewording and providing further explanations in the § Phonology and orthography/§ Grammar sections and adding precise SFN refs, as well as @IAWW's feedback above, I'm now happy that the article is a on this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article is pretty comprehensive! For smaller/lesser-known languages, it will always be difficult to provide huge amounts of detail as they are nowhere near as well-documented as some more widely-spoken languages, but there's lots of detail here with regard to the features of the language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See point 4 below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   No issues re viewpoint bias, but re WP:DUE: at the moment, most of the article is the § Phonology and orthography and § Grammar sections. These sections definitely go into a good amount of detail, but by comparison the rest of the article feels like it could do with expanding, so that the non-linguistic information about the language also gets its due weight. Would there be any way to beef the other sections up, for instance with a chunkier intro and the headers mentioned under point 1B above? Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   There isn't much info on the non-phonetic/non-grammar aspects of the language, though the lead definitely could be improved. The language doesn't have much documented history, any dialectal/regional variation documented in the literature, or interesting info on the vocabulary (there are lists of verbs documented by Kjelsvik, but I don't think that is necessary to add to the article). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, totally understand the issue here; smaller communities and their languages are often underrepresented by sources. The work you've done so far on the lead and § Geographical distribution and population looks really great! I have to go now, but I will have a look for sources over the next couple of days and see if there's any that go into more detail re history of the language/community. For now, these are the only ones I've found:

   • Leis, Philip (Spring 2011). "Past Passages: Initiation rites on the Adamawa Plateau (Cameroon)". Ethnology. 50 (2). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh: 169–188. ISSN 0014-1828. Retrieved 2025-05-16. I haven't read this one, and it's likely it's not relevant, but it's the only source within the first two pages of Google Scholar that isn't already cited in the article, so it's worth a skim just to check there's no info relevant to the language. I'm happy to do this at some point over the next couple of days, or you're welcome to.
   • Theil Endresen, Rolf [in Norwegian] (1992-06-30). "La phonologie de la langue nizaa (nizaà)" [The phonology of the Nizaa language]. Nordic Journal of African Studies (in French). 1 (1). Nordic Africa Research Network: 28–52. doi:10.53228/njas.v1i1.57. Retrieved 2025-05-15. I've only skimmed this one; I'm not sure whether you speak any French, but if not, I can have a more thorough read of it and see if there's anything useful.

   Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I've found that

   • Kjelsvik, Bjørghild (March 31, 2008). Emergent speech genres of teaching and learning interaction. Communities of practice in Cameroonian schools and villages. Faculty of Humanities (Linguistics PhD thesis). University of Oslo. pp. 91–134 – via ResearchGate.

   is pretty helpful in terms of the Nizaa people's culture. I've added some information about them in the 'Geographical distribution and population' section. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Oh brilliant! That's looking great. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: I have no knowledge of French, so if you do, I would appreciate it if you could see if the second source has anything useful in it. I'll try to look through the Philip source to find any useful info. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage: The Philip source doesn't have much information about the language or the culture itself (besides the circumcision initiation rights which are not really relevant here). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes fair enough, that would seem a bit off-topic! :D I had a look through the French source and given that it's a phonology, most of the content is already covered (eg. by Kjelsvik); there were a couple of points at the beginning about Nizaa farming and religious traditions, as well as the fact that Theil Endresen was the first to properly document the language, so I've added those in as ref 10 and ref 11, just to back up the existing sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

5. Is it stable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Adamawa Province ethnic groups.png is tagged with cc-by-sa-2.5 at Wikimedia Commons, and shows as CC-BY-SA-3.0 in article. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg is tagged with Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The map is definitely relevant, but given that the article title is Nizaa language, it's not immediately clear which label we're supposed to be looking at. If I'm understanding it correctly, it's the patch just to the left of centre that says 'Suga'; if so, it might be worth adding a note to this effect in the caption. Do we know if this map is backed up by any sources? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   The image was added before I started editing the article, so I didn't really scrutinize it much. However, it is supported by the Ethnologue Report of Cameroon and Fanso (1989), which talks about Cameroonian history. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's fair enough! Would it be worth adding these sources to the article somehow, for verifiability? Maybe an explanatory note (using Template:Efn or ref tags) in the caption, with something along the lines of "For demographic information, see [sources]"? Or if not, maybe in a "Further reading" section? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Also, what are your thoughts on File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg? Do you think it might be worth adding, either as well as or instead of File:Adamawa Province ethnic groups.png? It might be a bit more relevant as it's a map of languages rather than ethnic groups. Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I think that File:Map of the Mambiloid languages.svg is a better image than the older ethnic group image, so I've added that instead with a caption and alt text. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass! Congratulations @PharyngealImplosive7! Really well done for all your hard work on this article! Thank you for your patience given that this was my first review. As noted above, my authorship is now quite high, so apologies for this—I hope I haven't been meddling too much! The article is looking great, and I'm really pleased that this will be the next addition to Wikipedia's Good Articles about languages, of which there really should be more (in my opinion). Many thanks to @IAWW for his essential mentorship and contributions to this review. Congratulations again @PharyngealImplosive7! Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

General feedback (not necessary for WP:GA status)

1. Content

   Just a small note on an area for potential expansion: the § Consonants section mentions Most Nizaa are not literate, and the few who are often only can read and write Fula in the Ajami script. The Latin romanization of Nizaa also has not widely been adopted by the Nizaa people yet because of the low literacy of the Nizaa. As a reader, this left me wondering about the history of romanization of the language, who developed the system, etc. There might not be any sources that discuss this, and I don't have access to all the sources cited here, but this might be something to look into (eg. if you want to take this further to WP:FAC in future). Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   It was Endresen who actually first created the alphabet/romanization. Added that to the article. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Re § Name section: I don't have access to ref 8, but the 2009 edition of Ethnologue states that 'Baghap' is their name for themselves; 'Nizaa' for their language.^[7] Maybe Blench (1993)^[4] didn't know this at the time/new information has come to light? Might be worth looking into some of the more recent sources to see if any others discuss endonyms of the community/language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   Interesting; I didn't notice that when originally reading that source. It seems contradictory to all the other sources in the article; maybe it was a mistake? Blench (1993) does mention that their was some confusion around another unrelated Adamawa language also called Nyamnyam, so this might be related. It might be worth putting a note in the article about this, but I'm not sure. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

   A quick note re this edit... Apologies if this is a silly question (my IPA is rustier than I'd like it to be!) but what's the relationship between the tone markers you added and the way it's presented in the source? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   I used chao tone letters, which are more accurate then the accents that used by the source (although those are more common in the literature). I also used the IPA long vowel symbol instead of duplicating the vowel, which is preferred in IPA notation. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Interesting! I'd never heard of Chao tone letters. I'm still not sure about usage here, given both WP:Manual of Style/Pronunciation#Tone and WP:TSI, but I don't think it's that big of an issue! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Style

   @PharyngealImplosive7 I can see you're using American English (eg. favor) in the article; do you want to add TM:Use American English for future consistency? You don't have to, of course, but given that you're the main author (and first non-stub author) you do have authority to choose, per WP:ENGVAR/MOS:RETAIN! (You're also welcome to specify your preferred date format with TM:Use MDY dates/TM:Use DMY, if you want to.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Since this doesn't really have strong ties to any variety of English (Cameroon was a German and then a French colony), I'd prefer to leave it without any templates and let MOS:RETAIN prevent anyone from significantly changing it. I'm American, which is why I used American English, as it is what is most natural for me. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That's fair enough! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   There's just one Template:Copy edit inline tag in § Morphophonology as there's a run-on sentence that could be a bit clearer. Very minor issue! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   That should be fixed. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yep looks good! Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Just for transparency, I've been through the article and added bibliographic parameters to a few references for verifiability per CITEVAR. Hope this is okay! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fury 325/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Therguy10 (talk · contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing this article! I'm a new reviewer, so @It is a wonderful world has kindly offered his mentorship. I'll read through the article and start making some notes in the template below, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a fun one to review! IAWW (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Just noting that at time of writing, the nominator's authorship of this article is 5.4%, but they are ranked 5th in authorship so are eligible to nominate the article per WP:GAN/I. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: Unfortunately it looks like I'll be quite busy IRL for the next few days, so it might take me a bit longer than I'd like to complete the review. However, I'll still be able to make some progress with it every day, so hopefully I'll be able to get it done by the end of the week. Thank you for your patience everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

1. Is it well written? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   No glaring errors that I can see, and the article is generally clear and fairly concise. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Lead section Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   The lead is a good length, and provides an overview of the key information. The only detail in the lead that isn't expanded on in the main body is the fact that the roller coaster was manufactured by Bolliger & Mabillard. This is mentioned again in passing in § Records, but it might be good to mention the manufacturer details in the § History section, along with an independent source that confirms the manufacturer. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

    Done – Though it's not really detailed beyond a mere statement, the History section does mention the manufacturer now with source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Layout Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   • § Incident is currently a standalone section, but it restates and expands on information in the fourth paragraph of § History; to ensure there's no repetition, and that readers can be sure they're getting all the information they might be looking for, I think it might be sensible to make § Incident a subsection of § History, and merge the information from the fourth paragraph of § History into that new subsection. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   Just wanted to mention that WP:APARKS approach is to typically place an Incident section near the end of the article, which can cover incidents/accidents in more detail, and if any are substantially critical or important to the ride's history, include a brief mention in the History section as well. I agree that the contents in History should not simply regurgitate what is covered later in more detail. This version of Iron Gwazi when it achieved FA status demonstrates how minor incidents are not mentioned at all in History. This version of Son of Beast when it achieved GA status shows how a brief mention in History would work when done properly. I think the latter approach could work in this article as well. If agreed, I can make that change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Thank you for pointing this out! I didn't know there was a specific WP:APARKS policy re § Incidents sections. I did have a look at a couple of other roller coaster GAs, and their sections usually described more serious incidents, often involving evacuation of passengers, injuries or even death, and normally more than one; for instance, Kingda Ka#Incidents and Top Thrill 2#Incidents each list several different events, while Banshee (roller coaster)#Incidents and Firehawk (roller coaster)#Incident each only mention one but these both involved deaths. I'm really not an expert in roller coasters at all, or the style customs in WP:APARKS, but it struck me that the incident described in this article doesn't actually feel like much of an "incident" but rather a maintenance event that caused the closure of the ride, so would make more sense as a subsection of § History. Again, I might be completely wrong on this, but this was just my perception as a reader with limited knowledge of roller coasters/amusement parks. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   No, I think it's a excellent point that for one single occurrence, we probably don't need a dedicated section or subsection to cover it. Instead, it should be merged into the History section. I'll work on that now. Also, just for clarification, there isn't a policy per se being followed by WP:APARKS. The WikiProject's guidance only suggests a dedicated Incidents section; it doesn't require one. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Ah okay that makes sense! Sounds like a good plan, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    Done -- GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   • This is a minor issue, but the fact that the roller coaster is hornet-themed is only mentioned in § Theme, but the bug net marketing campaign is discussed in § History, and the buzzing hornet sound is mentioned in § Ride experience. As a reader, I found these details a bit confusing, until I got to § Theme and learned about the relevance of hornets to the ride. It might be worth briefly mentioning this earlier in the article, either in the lead, § History or potentially in § Ride experience, to avoid confusion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

     I've now added a brief mention of the theme to § History, just after the discussion of the beekeeper marketing campaign. Feel free to move/remove this if the mention would work better elsewhere! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Currently, there are separate sections for § Records, § Reception and § Awards; all of them are quite short, so for ease of navigation and reading, it might be an idea to make § Awards a subsection of § Reception (as in Pantherian#Awards, Millennium Force#Rankings, etc.) or even to combine all three into one § Reception and records section, similar to Top Thrill 2#Records and rankings. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    Done – Went with your first suggestion to combine Reception and Awards. Still room for expansion here, but it does seem logical to group these together while keeping Records separate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   Sources to be spot-checked (randomly generated):

   • Ref 19^[1] doesn't actually mention the fact stated by the sentence it's used to back up (On January 30, 2015, the final piece of Fury 325's track was put in place), which is a text-source integrity issue so I've tagged it with Template:text-source inline. However, this source does mention that Fury 325 was designed by Bolliger & Mabillard, so it could be used to back up the manufacturer details, as suggested above. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   The source does state, "Fury 325 will eventually provide far more thrilling moments than the one it gave the media Friday. But the installation by a construction crew of the final piece of the roller coaster ... was a milestone" along with its headline to indicate this happened on January 30, 2015. If that's not good enough, we can simply remove it (and use it elsewhere), as Ref 19 adequately supports the claim already. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I must have missed the implied connection with the date! (It doesn't help that the dateline only says "January 30, 2015", so it wasn't immediately obvious that "Friday" meant the same day the article was published!) In this case, I don't think it necessarily needs to be removed, maybe just switched with ref 19 so that the more explicitly relevant footnote comes first? I don't think this would be a GA requirement though so it's not a huge issue. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    Done. Thanks. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Ref 36^[2] Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation a is one of five footnotes at the end of the paragraph, which makes it difficult to verify (ideally these would be separated out to support individual sentences), but the source doesn't actively contradict the text. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

        Done – Section has been revamped to sentence citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

     • Citation b: the source supports the sentence it's used to back up. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation d: the source doesn't mention Steel Dragon 2000, which is the topic of the clause it immediately follows. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

        fixed – Replaced citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

     • Citation e: source doesn't mention Leviathan or Canada's Wonderland, so doesn't back up the sentence that cites it; I've tagged it with Template:text-source inline. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

        fixed – Removed citation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Ref 18^[3] Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 60 (Golden Ticket Awards 2018) Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 61 (Golden Ticket Awards 2019) Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 33 Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation a Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation b Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 4^[4] Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Citation a Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Citation b The cited webpage doesn't make it immediately obvious either that the application was suspended in February 2014, or why it was suspended... I went to the 'Documents' tab and found this letter explaining the reasoning for the suspension, so that might be a better source for this statement (archive link here). Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

      Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Ref 33^[5] The source does support the paragraph, but again, it's bundled with four others, which makes it difficult to check verifiability for each individual statement. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    fixed – This ref no longer exists. It was a duplicate of another. The section now uses inline citations after each sentence instead of paragraph citations. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

   • Ref 44^[6] Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 26^[7] The source supports most of the sentence, except the statement that The ride was closed later that day; the article only says it was shut down after a visitor called the fire department, not when exactly that happened. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

    fixed – This is supported by refs cited in the previous sentence. Repeated one of those for this sentence. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Perfect, thank you! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Most of the sources inspected do support the text, but there are a few WP:TSI issues here and there. I will likely do spot-checks of further sources later on in the review, just to be sure. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

   Further sources to be spot-checked (randomly generated):

   • Ref 49^[8] Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 66 (Golden Ticket Awards 2024) Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
   • Ref 14^[9] Source doesn't mention the brake run? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
   • 61 (Already checked) Ref 11^[10]
     • Citation a Date was incorrect but I have corrected this in the article. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation b Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation c Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
     • Citation d Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
   • 52 (I don't have access) Ref 53^[11] Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   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):

   Well-cited, and more easily verifiable now that citations have been rearranged to support sentences rather than whole paragraphs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   No OR, as far as I can tell! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's result is "Violation unlikely" at maximum 10.7% similarity, and I can't see any obvious close paraphrasing or unsourced quotes, so I'm happy to pass this criterion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Article covers the subject quite comprehensively, with sections, coverage and levels of detail comparable with other WP:APARKS GAs. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   In my opinion, no part of the article feels excessively technical; the article stays on-topic, without any unnecessary/irrelevant tangents, and the level of detail reflects the coverage of the subject in the sources. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Most of the article is descriptive, and where subjective opinions are presented (ie. § Reception), the viewpoints represented do reflect coverage in the sources, so I can't see any issue with editorial/viewpoint bias. Only one small suggestion: § Reception currently only documents Initial reception, so it might be good to include some more up-to-date reception as well. From a brief search, I found these sources from more recently: ^[12][13] Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Epicgenius kindly added the Leshock source to § Reception, which pretty much covered this point. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

5. Is it stable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   I can't see any ongoing edit wars, and the ATBE is reasonable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

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:

   I've reviewed the images in the article:

   • File:Fury 325 logo.png has a non-free use rationale.
   • File:Carowinds-Fury325Entry.JPG is tagged with CC BY-SA 4.0.
   • File:Fury 325 Track.jpg and File:Fury 325 (Carowinds) 1.jpg are tagged with CC BY-SA 2.0.
   • File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm is tagged with CC BY-SA 3.0; this hasn't been reviewed yet, but the video's YouTube description has a 'License' parameter with the tag "Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)", which is hyperlinked to YouTube's help page about Creative Commons licenses, and this page in turn links to CC BY 3.0.

   These all seem to check out from a copyright point of view, so I'm happy to pass this criterion! Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Relevance Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   All images are relevant to the article and provide good illustration to support the text. Given that the caption for File:Fury 325 (Carowinds) 1.jpg identifies the damaged support column, might it be worth moving this image from § Ride experience to either § Incident or, if the sections are merged as suggested above, § History? (This is only a minor issue!) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   Good suggestion, but it seems the main reason why this image was added was to show a portion of the layout (relevant to "Ride experience"). I used the {{Stack}} template to reposition this, so that it is closer to the History section. If that's not good enough, we can simply rephrase the caption, removing the part that mentions the cracked column. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

   Looks good to me! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Captions Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Good captions are provided for all the images; the video of the ride, File:Fury 325 Carowinds POV.webm, could do with a caption, just to properly frame it for readers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

   I added a caption for the video.

   Great, thank you! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to get to this! I’ve been very busy and am super grateful to Gone for the help. I’ll try to assist wherever I can. Therguy10 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hi @Pineapple Storage, just popping in to see how things are going. It looks like another very good review from you. I just noticed one thing you seem to have missed: the video has a watermark that should be removed (WP:WATERMARK). This doesn't seem to violate any GA criteria directly, but it seems like quite an important thing to fix. IAWW (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   The first watermark can be cut easily by cutting out the first section of the video. The icon in the bottom right is trickier. You could crop the side, or open a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop (I think that's the right place), though those requests often take a while to be answered. IAWW (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   @IAWW Oh wow, I'm so glad you caught this! The watermark issue wasn't on my radar so thank you for letting me know. I will have a look into the options and see what's available. Thank you again! Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   @IAWW I've had a look at the proposed Commons policy on watermarks and Wikimedia's legal guidance on removal of watermarks; from these, it seems like actually removing all traces of the watermark might be in a grey area re US copyright law. Because of this, I've left the in-picture icon in place, but trimmed the beginning and end of the video, and will upload it to Commons as a new version of the file along with a Watermark tag. I'll leave it to someone with more experience in copyright issues and watermarking to decide whether total removal of the icon is appropriate! Thank you again for catching this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks for this. It is a more gray area than I thought. The article and review are both looking very good, and I would be happy for this to pass if/when you are. IAWW (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   @IAWW I've had major difficulties trying to upload my trimmed version of the video to Commons, given the 100MB upload limit and the fact that Commons doesn't seem to accept MP4 uploads. I've tagged the video as watermarked, but I'm not sure whether this is enough?

   Also, what are your thoughts on the source spot-check above? I did find a few WP:TSI issues, and these have been fixed, but do you think the accuracy of sources needs further investigation or does the spot-check indicate general accuracy to GA standard? Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hi @Pineapple Storage, I also had the same issues so I requested help here. I don't think this should hold back the article from reaching GA – what can be done about it will be done. Well done for doing such an extensive spot check, and uncovering several TSI issues. I personally don't think the issues were severe enough require a full source-text integrity check, but it's up to you as the reviewer to make the final call. Note that it is relatively rare to complete a spot check with no issues found. IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Oops I forgot to hyperlink "here" IAWW (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Okay this is really helpful thank you! Thanks for asking at the Commons help desk, I will keep an eye out for responses to your query. And re sources, this is really useful; I feel like the spot-check showed that the majority of sources support the article, but I wasn't sure whether the fact that the check identified any TSI issues at all would mean that a full check had to be done. As long as the issues identified in the check are fixed, and you're happy for the article to pass based on this, then so am I! Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Great! Nice work, feel free to pass this when you are ready :) IAWW (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   IAWW, appreciate your assistance with the review. Had a question concerning your your edit here that removed the {{Stack}} template. I had added it recently, so that the corresponding image would stack next to the infobox and appear in the Ride experience section. Since roller coaster infoboxes tend to be long, we have used this workaround in the past. Is there an issue I may not be aware of? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Hi @GoneIn60, I accidentally published that edit without entering the edit summary. Apologies for that. At least on my device, the stack template was causing the image to move left of the infobox, creating a large whitespace to the right. IAWW (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Interesting. I didn't have that issue in a desktop Chrome browser. Do you see the same issue at Son of Beast (first image under Construction)? -- GoneIn60 (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes it displays to the left of the infobox for me. Is it meant to do that? I am on Firefox btw IAWW (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yes, just left of the infobox with text wrapping above and below the image. This is expected behavior and allows the image to appear in the section in which it was intended to appear in. Without Stack, it goes all the way to the right, below the infobox, which may cause it to appear in the wrong section. Hope that makes sense. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   I see what you're saying now. You can revert my edit if you would like. I'm not a fan of the whitespace created but I'll let you choose what to do. IAWW (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Thanks, I also see what you're saying about the whitespace after testing in Microsoft Edge. Depending on the resolution of your screen and font size (some of which can be controlled/changed in your Wikipedia account preferences), there is a slight chance that the stacked image will run into an odd overlap of the infobox, where part of the image sits below the infobox. When this odd overlap occurs, there is a lot of ugly whitespace to the right of the image.

   Unfortunately, that cannot be avoided in all situations, but stacking the image is still useful for those with larger resolutions and smaller font sizes. This could go either way, but I think I'll revert it back until some deeper discussion determines that we should avoid or deprecate the Stack template. IMO, it shouldn't exist if it's not to be used. GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

   Not sure if this helps; all looks normal on Safari on iPad. Therguy10 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @GoneIn60 @Therguy10 Really good work everyone! As discussed above, given the tweaking that has already been done re WP:TSI, I'll be more than happy to pass this article; just for my peace of mind, it would be great if someone could iron out the issue with ref 14 (^[9]) and then I'll close the review. Thanks again to @It is a wonderful world for his invaluable input! Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   @Pineapple Storage May it just be better to remove that source? The only other “source” I could find was this but I can’t imagine that’d cover much. Therguy10 (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Yep I think that might be a good plan, as well as rewording the sentence so that it only mentions the actual date of completion as mentioned in the 'BrakeRun2' ref (the other Facebook post, from October 24). Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

   Just did this myself, so happy to pass the article. Well done again to everyone! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 11:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I suspect much of this can be put to bed very simply, but it will have to wait now for next week. Blogs of established authors are fine, and we don't normally use page refs within journal articles. Speak to you later. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem, just come back to it whenever suits you. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: I couldn't find a specific guideline or policy advising against page numbers for journal articles, so I've added inline page numbers (using Template:Rp) to the Holmes refs, for convenience. You're welcome to remove them if you don't want them included, or change them to Template:Sfn format if you'd prefer. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll fix them to sfn as no part of WikiProject Middle-earth uses rp. Policy does not require pages within journal articles and hardly any Wikipedia articles or editors use such numbering. (BTW: looking for policy to say "and we don't do X" is asking a lot; laws of all types generally leave a blank when breathing and walking and eating are actually permitted.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Breathing, walking, eating... and adding page numbers to journal citations! :) Thank you for retaining the page numbers, I think it does aid transparency/verifiability. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll give this review a go! I'm a new reviewer, but have been part of a mentorship and have so far completed two reviews (Nizaa language and Fury 325). I'll read through the article and start making some notes, hopefully today, or tomorrow at the latest. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will try to get to your comments promptly, which I'll be able to do if they're by tomorrow. I will be away from my desk later this week and will respond to any later comments when I can. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem at all! It will likely take me a while to work through the review, so feel free to come back to it whenever suits you. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For future reference, comments are much easier to locate and to respond to if formatted as normal text, divided into level 3 (or 4) sections, rather than in the hierarchical #list of the template which has to be edited as one enormous object. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

You're so right! I've removed the #list format and replaced with plain text numbering for the criteria. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Final point: @Chiswick Chap do you think this should go in Poetry or Tolkien analysis GA category? Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I've just seen that Tolkien's poetry and Poetry in The Lord of the Rings are in Tolkien analysis. Never mind! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Lead section: Reviewers have echoed the editors' remark that readers too easily skip over the poems, finding them a distraction, when actually the poems contribute substantially and in multiple ways to the reader's understanding of character and mood. I think an addition along the lines of ... readers too easily skip over the poems included in Tolkien's prose works, finding them ... would clarify that readers aren't skipping over the poems in The Collected Poems, but rather those embedded in Tolkien's other works. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Done.

§ Quality of the poetry paragraph 5: (literally, words and phrases in literature that Tolkien specially liked) — is "literally" necessary? Also, shouldn't "specially" be "especially"? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Cut 'literally'. Both 'specially' and 'especially' seem good to me; I'd prefer the former, but no matter.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

All good on this point now, as far as I can see. The lead is a summary of the article, with proportional coverage of the sections (ie. a chunkier summary of § Reception than of § Contents). Layout is sensible and pretty standard, no obvious words to watch, and no unnecessary lists etc. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

There aren't that many sources, so rather than a random spot-check I'm happy to check them all. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

See Source check below. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Source check found a few WP:TSI issues, plus some attribution tweaks and a couple of WP:VOICE recommendations. More detail below in Source check. Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Good idea to split this out from this list, per my FFR comment above.

A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

References are consistently formatted, and listed in § References. Also, appropriate ref names are used per WP:REFNAME. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

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): Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

§ Raising the poems' profile The passage ("Many who enjoy ...") quoted from Ordway is a direct quote from the book itself, within the first few paragraphs of the introduction; a sample is available here ^[a] and is linked on the HarperCollins page for the book. It might be good to cite the original source for the quotation, as well as Ordway's article. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC) As mentioned below, I'll agree to disagree on this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The Ordway citation is sufficient as it covers the material.

§ Contents As mentioned below under criterion 4, it would be good to cite the quoted samples with page numbers from The Collected Poems. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Added.

§ Reception Most of the sources are short articles, so no need for page numbers, but Holmes is 39 pages; direct quotes from this article are included, so for verifiability it might be good to add some page numbers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC) I've now added these myself. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This has been addressed.

File:Tolkien's Collected Poems.svg says Verse translations still not published in full, and the caption says ... including some still unpublished like Tolkien's verse translation of part of Beowulf with citations to Cooper and Bratman, but neither of these sources back up the claim that Tolkien's verse translation of Beowulf is still not published in full. Is there a page in The Collected Poems that backs up this fact? If so, it might be worth citing. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Added a ref.

C. It contains no original research:

No OR as far as I can tell. Some WP:TSI issues highlighted in the Source check below, which may need further citations to confirm basis in sources and rule out OR. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Please note that it is normal for a book's contents to be cited implicitly, i.e. the book itself is sufficient to describe itself, the proper use of a primary source. No secondary source can improve on what is actually in the book; secondary sources are needed for comments about the book, a different matter. It is actually impossible for a contents description to be original research as long as it does not contain editorial opinions.

@Chiswick Chap Yes, of course, but WP:V (and therefore WP:BURDEN) still applies; if you've added content to the article based on what's in the book, then I would argue that this should be made clear and (especially in a book of 1600+ pages) a specific citation should be provided where possible. Readers and future editors likely won't have time to skim the whole book to check the accuracy of a given claim (if they have access to the book at all, which isn't a given, due to the price of both the physical and digital copies and inaccessibility through eg. Wikipedia Library). Without citations, and unless they have the time to verify the information for themselves, the expectation is inherently that readers and editors should just "take your word for it"; while you are certainly an expert in the subject, and I have no doubt that your representation of the contents of the book is accurate, I think you would agree that this expectation would go against the ethos of the encyclopedia. Also, if the book's contents [are] cited implicitly, this leaves it up to future editors to add citations; that's absolutely fine for most articles (because Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required) but we are discussing a GA nominee, and you know better than anyone that these have higher standards than most articles.

All that being said, given that you've now added citations for the quoted poem samples and the rest of the book-sourced information is unlikely to be challenged, I won't keep banging on about it. I'm hoping to get my hands on a copy of the collection within the next couple of days (library-request delays permitting), so I might add a couple of book citations later (and you can revert my additions if you object to them). Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Editors necessarily summarise and paraphrase the sources they read, that is what editing (meaning creation of content) consists of. That kind of work is inherently verifiable because the sources exist. WP:V extends to works that exist in a single manuscript copy in a remote library; there is no prescription that cited works have to be accessible with a click or two.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. As mentioned below, § Reception is quite lengthy, and it contains a lot of quotations. By my count, direct quotations make up about 23% of the word count of this section, and the quotations from critics make up about 15% of the article overall (if we include the newly-added samples in § Contents, then direct quotations are about 23% of the article's total prose). I haven't yet checked the quoted proportions for individual sources (as laid out in WP:OVERQUOTE) but I'm aware of the potential relevance of WP:COPYQUOTE re critics' articles etc.; I also looked over this discussion, which I think might be relevant to this article. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this criterion @Chiswick Chap, especially regarding § Reception. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's fine. The newly-added samples are of course in response to your request. There is no specific limit on amount of quotation (however measured), but fair usage requires that only a reasonable percentage of the original work be quoted, i.e. we don't copy whole poems. Wikipedia is in general more cautious than the law, which simply says that quotes must be attributed and must be for reasonable scholarly or critical purposes, which this certainly is.

Personally I still don't feel great about the levels of direct quotation (I note that Earwig measures 51% similarity to the Ordway source, though a few of the highlighted phrases are the editors' names, titles of works, etc.) but I know there are no hard-and-fast rules about this so it's not prohibitive for GA. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Direct quotation and attributions to names and books necessarily cause tools like Earwig to flag up text matches. That is no issue, unlike the case with plagiarism.

3. Is it broad in its coverage? Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: Now that some discussion of the content of the poems has been introduced. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

The § Contents section gives a good overview of the content, scope and structure of the book, but I found myself wanting some more information about the poems themselves, especially the previously unpublished ones. Alberge gives short extracts of a couple of these, including "The Empty Chapel" and "Monday Morning", which are mentioned in passing in the summary of her review in § Quality of the poetry. Given that this collection is the first publication of so many of Tolkien's poems, might it be good to incorporate discussion of the text of some of these into § Contents? (Further discussion in criterion 4 below.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt if your request could be fulfilled by any conceivable structure of this article; the poems are far too numerous and varied in length and style for any such summary to be workable. The job of a contents section is indeed to provide "a good overview of the content, scope and structure of the book", so I am glad you think it does that already.

I also found this article that seems to contain some more extracts and discussion of previously unpublished poems. I haven't read it properly but it might be worth a look to see if there's anything useful. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted. The article is specific to one poem in the collection and as such is probably beyond the scope of this general article about the book.

Sure, but currently, § Contents doesn't give any indication of even the broad themes covered by the previously unpublished poems: according to Lyon (p. 1), Many of the early poems are intimate portraits of Tolkien’s romance with Edith Bratt, images of his legendarium to come, or his relationships with the TCBS. Also, I assume that Alberge's discussion of Tolkien's war poems has been described in § Quality of the poetry because the collection does in fact include war poems. These could be used as sources for a brief summary of the poems' themes in § Contents, to at least give the reader an overview. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Added a bit on themes from Alberge, at the risk of repetition, and from Lyon, who however is not principally concerned with providing coverage of that subject. Further, the book is not organised thematically, so we have to be very careful not to impose interpretations.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

This might just be personal preference, but I think it's worth saying anyway given other concerns about WP:DUE and WP:COPYQUOTE mentioned elsewhere in this review; I feel like § Reception goes into a bit too much detail about the exact comments of every single reviewer, with an excessive number of direct quotations, and basically no summary of overall critical response (not even an introductory sentence/paragraph for the section). As mentioned above, I'm aware of this discussion about the spectrum that exists between quote-plopping (allowing the reception section to just be a list of quotes) at one end, and at the other, generalising "critical response" too much without isolating any individual reviewer's points, which risks WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues. In this case, given the abundance of reviews (at least 11, by my count), I think at least some encyclopedic summary is in order; even if cross-review summary is avoided, summarising the main arguments of individual reviews (for instance, Holmes, which currently occupies three paragraphs in § Presentation) would make the experience of reading and navigating § Reception a lot easier than the current quote-after-quote-after-quote format. In an ideal world, if a reader comes to § Reception looking to find out how critics generally responded, they shouldn't have to read all 1400+ words before they can draw any kind of conclusion at all. Pineapple Storage (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The job of Reception is to present neutrally and clearly what reviewers, scholars and critics have written. The division into subsections ("Raising the poems' profile" etc.) does what can safely be attempted to organise the comments; refactoring them is risky, as you rightly imply, and any generalised statement, even the blandest bit of leading-in to a section ("Some scholars have stated that the quality..." will attract requests for citation. Best we don't go there.)

I understand where you're coming from, but I still think a summary paragraph identifying the key points from some of the reviews discussed at most length (Ordway, Kriticos and Holmes, for instance) placed before any of the subheadings in § Reception would aid readability and navigation. Something like: The collection has been reviewed by critics and Tolkien scholars in several publications, including Mythlore and the Journal of Tolkien Research.^[1][2] Scholar 1 commented on A and B;^[3] scholar 2 focused on C, while recognising D.^[4] Scholar 3 praised E and F, but also noted G.^[5] This would give § Reception a pyramid structure, where readers can get the gist of the critical response to the book from the summary, then get the details, quotes, etc. from the subsections. An overview of topics addressed by critics falls well within summary style. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't do that, as the lead acts as the top of your 'pyramid' and it already provides such a summary. By the same token, a Wikipedia article body does not include an introductory or overview section, nor a conclusions section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, I completely forgot that the summary was already in the lead! I hadn't reread the lead since I started the review 10 days ago. Apologies! :') Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: As mentioned elsewhere, I think there's still a bit too much detail in § Reception (especially given the minimal detail of § Contents), but I get that this is subjective; now that some more detail has been added to § Contents, I'm okay to pass on this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral? Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

No problems that I can see in terms of WP:NPOV, as a range of critical viewpoints (positive and negative) are presented in § Reception.

However, re WP:DUE: please feel free to set me right on this (as I’m very much not an expert in either Tolkien or poetry collections/anthology works/etc., and have no Wikipedia experience in these areas), but from my perspective as a reader, the weighting of the article feels a bit unbalanced... § Reception contributes ~70% of the article's prose. That's not to say that § Reception is necessarily^[b] too long, just that it would be good if the same level of detail extended to § Contents. As mentioned above, given the number of poems that were previously unpublished, I find myself wondering about the content of those, and would have hoped to find out more information about them in the § Contents section^[c].

I'm not sure whether you have access to a copy of the collection (even the ebook is £45!) but if so, it would be interesting to outline some of the information provided in the commentaries by the editors—perhaps for any poems for which the editors' commentary was particularly comprehensive, or where lots of different versions were included in the book. (Does this make sense?) It might also be good to include some examples of Tolkien's limericks and clerihews (if possible, given copyright etc.), to give readers an idea of Tolkien's particular style in these genres of poetry, as well as maybe some descriptions of the content of the full-colour frontispiece, and six monochrome plates. (What do the images depict? What was special about the images the editors chose to include?)

In summary, it would be nice to have a bit more in-depth coverage of the actual Poems Collected in The Collected Poems (and the editors' commentary on them) given that this collection contains some that were previously unpublished and therefore (very likely) unknown to readers; this extra detail in § Contents would then also mirror the comprehensive coverage of § Reception, making the article feel more balanced. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll have a think about what we can include in Contents. We can maybe quote briefly from a poem or two; it's a more sensitive matter than quoting prose, as even a short sample can be a large percentage of a short poem, so we need to have good reason to use it under the fair usage rules. The Contents is certainly not the right place to discuss poems, that point is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

For sure! I totally understand. Might it be possible to include short extracts (for instance, any lines that are discussed at particular length in the editorial commentary) from some of the longer unpublished poems? This would mean the quoted lines would make up a smaller proportion of the works, but would still give readers an idea of the content of some of these never-before-seen poems. Also, if you would prefer to avoid including any discussion in § Contents, would it be an idea to add a § Poems section (or similar)? Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

That would be the implication. If we're giving quotations from the book's content, then Contents is the place. We can't do our own discussion of the contents in 'Poems' or anywhere else, that would be WP:OR. That is already why the reception/analysis is more detailed, because that is the legitimate discussion of the book's quality and contents. Indeed, thinking about this, there is no reason why Reception's length should be limited to the length of Contents, there is no implied relationship there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, obviously no original discussion would be included, but it might be good to summarise the commentaries by the editors for the quoted poems, to give readers some context; that's all I meant by "discussion". Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do without crashing the OR barrier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I can see you've already added some samples to § Contents, so this is looking good so far. It might be good to add some citations with page numbers for the quoted passages of The Collected Poems?

Re no reason why Reception's length should be limited to the length of Contents, I agree, but also WP:WEIGHT still applies; as I said, I have no prior experience in this area, but as a reader I feel like an article about a book of 1600+ pages (including many previously unpublished poems) should at least describe some of the poems and summarise some of the book's editorial commentary on those poems. I'm not saying the description of the content of the book should necessarily be the same length/longer than the description of the critical response, I just meant it would be nice if the proportions were a bit more balanced. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted. As above, I don't think we can do that, nor would it be in scope for this article as it's a matter for Tolkien's poetry (which is already linked).

Okay, but § Reception (especially § Quality of the poetry) already includes commentary on Tolkien's poetry from secondary sources. Why not include in § Contents not only a brief summary of the topics/themes of the unpublished poems (as described under criterion 3A above) but also a description/summary of some of the editors' commentary, which is after all part of the content unique to the book? (From my reading of the reviews etc., the collection isn't just all Tolkien's poems printed one after another; at least some of them are interspersed with discussion by the editors, which is currently only mentioned in passing, and leaves a lot of question marks for me as a reader. What kind of commentary do they provide? Do they talk about any particular difficulties they encountered when trying to ascertain chronology of poem drafts? Are there any repeated themes in their commentary, or points about Tolkien's life or work that are brought up multiple times throughout the book? Etc.)

Again though, I'm not going to keep banging on about this; I feel I've already gone slightly mad trying to draw a line between the strictly-define GA criteria and my nagging feeling that the article leaves some key questions unanswered. (I suspect that to someone who has read the book and knows it well, and has also read a lot of other Tolkien scholarship literature, the answers to these questions may seem so obvious as to not need mentioning.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted; I agree that you are trying to go far beyond the GA criteria here, and probably far beyond what a Wikipedia article ought to be doing really. I've added a mention of commentary from TCG.

Hmm... I would disagree; these edits have pretty much covered what I was after, and I don't think you'd have added them if they were beyond scope! :) Thank you for making these additions, it has made a difference in terms of comprehensive coverage of the book. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note re describing the illustrations; on page 4 of his review, under Front Matter and Introduction, Holmes specifies that (at least some of) the plates are reproductions of Tolkien's manuscripts. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Added.

Note: I still feel like § Reception is a bit too extensive/over-detailed, but now that some more detail has been added to § Contents, I don't think this imbalance is prohibitive for GA. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted.

5. Is it stable? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

All good on this point. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images? Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

• File:The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien (vol 1 cover).jpg has a non-free use rationale. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• File:Tolkien's Collected Poems.svg is tagged as CC BY-SA 4.0. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• File:Lena och riddaren dansa (Lena dances with the knight) by John Bauer 1915.jpg is tagged with commons:Template:PD-Art as the artist died in 1918. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Not too sure about File:Lena och riddaren dansa (Lena dances with the knight) by John Bauer 1915.jpg; it would be good if the caption made a more explicit connection between the theme of the painting and the critical discussion of themes in Tolkien's poetry. Without further detail, the image is a painting of two people dancing, which doesn't obviously connect with the dynamic of disenchantment and re-enchantment in Tolkien's poetry. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Bauer's painting shows a scene of a mythical knight and his lady in an enchanted landscape; it's a good expression of the feelings engendered by Tolkien's Middle-earth. I'm not sure what more we could do with captioneering really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think what gave me pause was that the painting's setting doesn't look especially enchanted, and nor do the characters depicted. Even just a mention of the "enchanted landscape" in the caption would clarify the image's relevance, I think! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Added.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Wow! That was a bit of a marathon but we got there. Thank you for your patience with my review—and my forgetfulness, eg. with the lead summary! As I've said above, I still think there's room for improvement, but GA criteria are met so happy to pass. Well done, and thank you again! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Source check

(as of 20:23, 3 June 2025)

1. Hammond, Wayne G.; Scull, Christina (12 March 2024). "Tolkien's Collected Poems". Too Many Books and Never Enough. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Self-published blog by the editors of the collection. Not independent, but I think WP:ABOUTSELF applies as it's only used as a source for the editors' account of the history of the book. If any of this info is provided in the book itself (for instance, in the highly informative introduction) then it would be good to cite the book too, as it likely has editorial oversight from the publisher re accuracy etc. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The established-scholar exception applies here; I doubt very much that H&S asked the publisher if they could blog about their book, and I'm sure the publisher would defer to them on matters of scholarly interpretation.

• Citation a (cited as source for the whole of § Background): the source doesn't explicitly state that Christopher Tolkien invited the editors to work on the collection (as currently stated in § Background), just that the collection was suggested to [them] in HarperCollins’ offices and that Christopher Tolkien hoped that his father’s talent for poetry could become more widely known—from reading the source, it's possible that it was HarperCollins who "invited" Scull and Hammond to work on the collection, and that Christopher Tolkien just approved it. I know this is a bit nit-picky, but given that the blog is self-published, and the details of the commissioning of the collection involve a third party (Christopher Tolkien), I think precision would be advisable here. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Edited.

• Also, Edith Bratt and the first poem in the collection aren't mentioned in the source. Maybe cite a page in the book? Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see you've addressed this.

  Re mention of Edith Bratt and first poem: for now, I've added a footnote citing Pizzimento, as the source says A quegli anni risale anche la prima poesia scritta da Tolkien di cui si abbia notizia, Morning / Morning Song (Collected Poems, n. 1), acclusa in una lettera all’amata Edith Bratt datata 28 marzo 1910. According to Google Translate, transl. The first known poem written by Tolkien also dates back to those years, Morning / Morning Song (Collected Poems, n. 1), included in a letter to his beloved Edith Bratt dated 28 March 1910. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noted.

• Citation b (cited as source for most of the first paragraph of § Contents): FVSP also for the statements about Songs for the Philologists (which isn't mentioned) and poems in other languages (the source actually says as many of his father’s poems as possible, regardless of their date of composition, language, or circumstance, so I assume this policy changed later). Maybe cite the introduction to the book, if that's where these are mentioned? Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  This has been discussed above. "Contents" is based on the book itself, which is necessarily the ultimate authority here.

  The way the footnotes are currently positioned implies that the "blog" and "Bratman March 2024" sources support the whole preceding paragraph. As this isn't the case (because, as you've said, some or all of the preceding paragraph is sourced from the book), it would be good if this was illustrated somehow, for instance in a footnote citing the introduction to the collection (pp. xiii–lxiix, or whatever the page range of the introduction is) if the introduction states the language details etc. explicitly. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  A simple fix: a paragraph break, would be sufficient; we can ref the Introduction.

  Great, job done. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

2. Cooper, Shawn Phillip (11 October 2024). "Worlds of Delight: The Poetry of J.R.R. Tolkien". The European Conservative. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I had never heard of The European Conservative, and frankly their 'About' page was a tough read. In any other context I would be very concerned about WP:RS status, but given WP:RSOPINION, WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:BIASED, I guess it's fine for inclusion in § Reception. (This profile says the author has a PhD in English Literature and Culture, which I think qualifies him to review literary works—although it would be nice if the review were in a more reputable publication.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted. I agree with you that the source is fine for the purpose here.

• Citation a (in caption for File:Tolkien's Collected Poems.svg): as mentioned above in point 2B, source only discusses Bealuwérig, Tolkien's translation of "Jabberwocky", not his translation of Beowulf, or the fact that the verse translation is still unpublished. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  I added a ref.

• Citation b: WP:TSI fine for the last sentence of the paragraph, but the source doesn't mention the manuscripts and doesn't specify that commentary is given for individual poems (only the introduction's commentary is mentioned). Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  The paragraph doesn't mention "manuscripts" or "commentary" so there seems no issue here.

  @Chiswick Chap The last sentence of the paragraph is Poems are shown in different versions, gathered from Tolkien's manuscripts, and have commentaries by the editors. The collection is structured chronologically. The only footnote for this sentence is currently a ref to the Cooper source, which doesn't mention manuscripts or individual-poem commentary. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, in Contents. This is a description of the book itself, not from Cooper. Reordered.

• Citations c–g (paragraph 4 of § Presentation): no inaccuracies regarding Cooper's review, but attribution is never introduced as it is with other critics in this section; the reviewer is only referred to as Cooper, and there's no mention of which publication the review appeared in. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Fixed.

  Also, WP:REPEATCITE? One footnote at the end of the paragraph might be sufficient, given the lack of page numbers. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  A ref follows each direct quotation.

3. Bratman, David (October 2024). "Some statistical thoughts about The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien". The Tolkien Society. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Unknown editorial policy for blog posts on this website, but The Tolkien Society do publish academic journals and the author is an established Tolkien scholar. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A reliable source on Tolkien matters.

• Citation a (in caption for File:Tolkien's Collected Poems.svg): again, source doesn't specify that the Beowulf verse translation remains unpublished. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  I added a ref, as already mentioned.

• Citation b: all accurate to the source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noted.

4. Scull, Christina; Hammond, Wayne G. "Contents" (PDF). wayne & christina. p. xii. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 October 2024. Retrieved 3 June 2025.

I added this ref, to verify the description of the appendices and end matter. The version from their website isn't ideal; if I had a copy of the collection in front of me, I'd cite the ToC straight from the book, and leave the web version in § See also. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Noted.

5. Ordway, Holly (30 September 2024). "A First Look at 'The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien'". Word on Fire. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, Word on Fire would be a questionable source for non-opinion content (assessments from Media Bias/Fact Check and Ground News don't inspire confidence) but for opinion from a known Tolkien scholar, this isn't too much of a problem. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Noted.

• Citation a: as mentioned under point 2B above, the Many who enjoy ... passage is a direct quotation from the introduction to the book, so it would be good if this were also cited. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC) I still feel like an original source ref would be good, but I'm not going to go on about it. :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noted, this is discussed above.

• Citations b–f (§ Raising the poems' profile and § Quality of the poetry): all accurate to the source. Given that this is the only source cited in these two paragraphs, and quotations are clearly attributed, there would be no ambiguity over the source of the direct quotes if there were just one footnote at the end of each paragraph; I feel like repeated footnotes are unnecessary here given the lack of page numbers, but that's just preference. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Again, each quotation is cited.

6. Kriticos, Christian (16 October 2024). "The Poetic Origins of Middle-earth". Los Angeles Review of Books. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citations a–e: all accurate to the source. WP:REPEATCITE may apply, but again, not a big issue. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  As above.

• Citation f: the final sentence slips into Wikipedia's voice, including an out-of-quotation comment about Tolkien's creative genius, so it would be good if this could be reworded. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  In Kriticos's view. I felt this was clear from the context, but added it now anyway.

• Citation g: accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  Noted.

7. Alberge, Dalya (24 August 2024). "Beyond Bilbo: JRR Tolkien's long-lost poetry to be published". The Observer. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citation a: accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.
• Citation b: another instance of a direct quote from the introduction to the book, via the secondary source. Would be good to cite the original passage from the book, in addition to the Alberge source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2025 (UTC) As above. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Again, the secondary source is sufficient here.

8. Emanuel, Tom (10 September 2024). "First publication of J.R.R. Tolkien's collected poems offers new insights into the Lord of the Rings author's personality". The Conversation. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citations a and b: accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.

9. Flieger, Verlyn (2019). "The Arch and the Keystone". Mythlore. 38 (1). Article 3. Now removed. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• This source is supposed to support a passing mention of Flieger's concept of a dynamic or dialectic of disenchantment, as seen in "The Sea-Bell", but neither "The Sea-Bell" nor the word "disenchantment" are mentioned in the source, and "enchantment"/"enchanted" is only mentioned three times, in an article of 15 pages. Is there a better source (for instance, from one of her books) for Flieger's own description of this dialectic of disenchantment in "The Sea-Bell"? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  This is a direct, cited, and attributed quotation, so it represents the source's opinion exactly of Flieger's writing. I've read a lot of Flieger, and it feels a fair depiction of her voice, but it isn't for Wikipedia to original-research-double-guess why they said so: indeed, we mustn't try.

  @Chiswick Chap I agree, insofar as the Emanuel quotation (from The Conversation) is exactly accurate to the cited source, and the Edmonds source accurately describes Flieger's voice. However, the Emanuel source doesn't actually mention "The Arch and the Keystone"; in fact, the hyperlink provided in the source is to pages 209–220 of Flieger's book A Question of Time: J.R.R. Tolkien's Road to Faërie. For reference, the wording in § Quality of the poetry is currently The Conversation writes that the poetry is part of the Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger's^[6] dynamic or dialectic of disenchantment, as seen in "The Sea-Bell", combined with and opposed by re-enchantment, as seen in "the elven-realm of Lothlórien".^[7] Given that "The Arch and the Keystone" is neither mentioned by the quoted source, nor discusses the content of this paragraph at length, the citation of it doesn't seem to be relevant. It would make sense to either cite A Question of Time, given that that's the link provided by the Emanuel source, or remove the Flieger citation entirely and let this paragraph rely on the Emanuel citation. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Done. BTW no need to ping, I'm watching this page.

10. Edmonds, Jeremy (11 September 2024). "TCG Review - The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien edited by Christina Scull and Wayne G. Hammond". Tolkien Collector's Guide. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about the editorial policy of this site, or whether one exists, but as mentioned before, I don't see this as too much of a problem for reviews. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted.

• Fine re WP:TSI, but the citation lists the author as Edmonds, Jeremy; the authors listed by the source are pseudonymous, as stated in the body text of § Quality of the poetry, so I'm not sure who Jeremy Edmonds is. I think this needs attention. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

  Removed JE.

11. Garth, John. "The Collected Poems of J. R. R. Tolkien: Book review". The Times Literary Supplement. Retrieved 27 November 2024. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citations a–d: accurate to source. (It's worth noting that all of the quotations cited appear in the review before any mention of The Collected Poems, so they're really statements about Tolkien's poetry overall; I don't have access to the whole article though, so I'm not sure what else is said about this book specifically, or for instance about the previously unpublished poems.) Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.

12. Pizzimento, Paolo (5 December 2024). "I Collected Poems di Tolkien: la recensione" [Tolkien's Collected Poems: Review]. Associazione Italiana Studi Tolkieniani (in Italian). Retrieved 8 January 2025. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• I don't read Italian, so I'm relying on machine translation, but I'm pretty sure the summary is accurate. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.

13. Holmes, John R. (2024). "[Review:] The Collected Poems of J.R.R. Tolkien (2024), edited by Christina Scull and Wayne G. Hammond". Journal of Tolkien Research. 20 (1). Article 8. Added distance from WP:VOICE. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I've added page numbers with Template:Rp, but these can be removed if they're a problem, or otherwise switched to a different format. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citations a–f and h: accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Citation g: Hmm. The summary (in short, ...) does represent the opinions summarised in the source, but I feel like the language is a bit too negative (cluttered, repetitive ... mass of drafts) to be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Either rewording it to be a bit more neutral, or directly quoting the source, might be a good idea. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Since we agree that the summary accurately represents the scholarly opinion, no action is needed here. Wikipedia is not censored, and is not required to be mealy-mouthed. If a scholar names issues that he or she perceives, we are at liberty to name them too: the material is cited and attributed, which is sufficient.

  Sure, but I still think it needed more explicit distancing from Wikipedia's voice. I've added a bit of an escape clause for this (diff) just for my own peace of mind re WP:NPOV; feel free to edit this if you feel it's necessary. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

14. Oliver, Henry (3 December 2024). "Tolkien the Timekeeper". Prospect. Retrieved 9 January 2025. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Citations a and b: accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.

15. Brown, Sara. "The Poetic Corpus of J.R.R. Tolkien: Tolkien's Collected Poems (The Years 1910–1967 in Three Volumes)". Blackberry. Signum University. Retrieved 9 January 2025. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Accurate to source. Pineapple Storage (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Noted.

Notes

1. [a]

   I can't seem to get that link to point to the right page, but the passage can be found on the double-page spread at the start of Introduction.
2. [b]

   inserted 23:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
3. [c]

   inserted 00:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: Pineapple Storage (talk · contribs) 01:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Note: @DaniloDaysOfOurLives and I are working very hard to review every single GA nomination in the television section. Consider joining us to clear the backlog!

Hi @Pineapple Storage, I noticed you had a nomination open and it seems very interesting! So I'll review it. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments are below. I thought this was extremely well written for your first GA! Great work :) IAWW (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Amazing, thank you so much for taking on the review! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) clock

Lead

I think the lead needs to be expanded a bit to cover the main points of the article. A quick summary of their main campaigns would be appropriate. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead to include some more details about their activities (diff). Is this what you were thinking? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's great. I don't see any issues holding this back from GA anymore, so I'm gonna go ahead and pass. That was quick! IAWW (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The purpose listed in the infobox is "Protesting against Elon Musk", but I think it should be a little more general than that, e.g. "Protesting against Elon Musk and billionaire influence" to be accurate. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally agree, as their scope has definitely widened beyond just protesting Musk. I think "billionaire influence" might not quite cover it, as they seem to be opposed to billionaires in general (especially their tax avoidance etc.) rather than just their influence in politics... Could Protesting against Elon Musk and other billionaires work? Or maybe Anti-billionaire protests (although I don't think this is a commonly-used phrase)? I'm not sure how to strike the right balance between conciseness and a comprehensive summary! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I like Protesting against Elon Musk and other billionaires IAWW (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk

The campaign is anticipated to raise £150,000 over the course of one year, and was discussed in a February 2025 episode of The Guilty Feminist podcast: Grammar error (WP:CINS) IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Without the comma, I feel like this sentence runs on a bit, but I also want to avoid repeating the campaign too many times, so I'm thinking of changing it to this: The fundraising campaign, which is anticipated to raise £150,000 over the course of one year, was discussed in a February 2025 episode of The Guilty Feminist podcast. Is this better? Or should it be two separate sentences? Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I like this IAWW (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Other campaigns

Looks good :)

London vs Musk

Looks good :)

Sources Y

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Y

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Y

Almost all reliable news outlets

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Y

Spot check based on this version

[2a]: Y

[2b]: Y

[3f]: Y

[7a]: Y

[8a]: Y

[17b]: Y

[22]: Y

[26]: Y

No issues found. Nice work.

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Y

Nothing found on Earwig or the spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Y

This article seems controversial at first, but it's almost entirely descriptive. Is there any sourcing on the reception/reactions to the group's activities? IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I noticed this too. I've had another look for actual reviews/evaluation of the group's activities/campaigns/strategy, but I'm having trouble finding any. I think it's possible that authors of reliable sources (newspaper articles etc.) try not to pass comment/give opinions on the campaigns, to avoid creating controversy with editors who don't want to risk drawing negative attention from Musk's supporters. Certainly, I haven't been able to find any sources criticising Everyone Hates Elon or their poster campaigns, but I also haven't found any that explicitly express their support for the group. I will keep looking, and add any reception etc. to the article if I find it! Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough! I don't think this is an issue for the GA broadness criteria though, so I'll pass on scope. IAWW (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Stable (Criterion 5) Y

Media Y

No media unfortunately. I couldn't find any either unfortunately. IAWW (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually reached out to the group in April (per WP:REQFREE and WP:ERP) to ask them if they'd be willing to release some of their images under a free license to allow inclusion in the article. They said they'd be happy to upload an image/some images to Wikimedia Commons, and that they'd let me know when the uploads were done; I actually haven't heard back from them (I'm sure they've been pretty busy this month!) but I will get back in touch to let them know about this review and see about an update on images. Pineapple Storage (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That would be great! IAWW (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Tags (Criterion 6a) Y

Captions (Criterion 6b) Y

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

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.