Talk:The Two Towers/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Prhartcom (talk · contribs) 03:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll be happy to review this article. I'll give it start tomorrow evening. Prhartcom (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll respond promptly to any comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Well-written?

References and Sources sections

If you are interested, I found a long-format isbn for A Tolkien Compass: 9780875483160. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a different edition. I've converted the 1975 ISBN to ISBN-13 for you.

Great. Prhartcom (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

"The Two Towers at the Internet Book List" archive link didn't open anything useful. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed.

I found a way to get it to display, so I put it back. The article of the previous book had one of these links, so we may as well be consistent. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Why have reference no. 1 ("The Two Towers". Between the Covers. Retrieved 28 December 2010.)? I'm not sure of the point of referring to this website. I believe references are for people who want to check the source for more information on what is being referenced, but there is really nothing here. By the way, generally we do not add references from the Infobox; similar to how we don't put references in the lede (it is a summary of facts that are supposed to be referenced below). Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed.

What exactly is reference no. 2 (The Lord of the Rings Extended Movie Edition)? Is it a book? If so, shouldn't this reference have all the usual book information, author, isbn etc., and be listed under Sources with the other books? By the way, this is an interesting fact being referenced here regarding the paper shortages; I would think you could find a better reference for this in one of your other books. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a DVD of the movie in its longer-than-cinematic version.

Then, let's not use this source. The people who wrote the script for the DVD likely found the interesting paper shortage fact in one of your referenced book sources; I challenge you to find it. Prhartcom (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited with new ref. Reynolds just says it was for economic reasons, i.e. cheaper.

That's good news; it would have been a shame to cut this. I see the new reference. Glad you fixed it. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Since reference no. 7 (The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-earth. Houghton Mifflin. p. 170. ISBN 0-395-29129-1.) is a book, why not have this book listed under Sources with the other books? Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Lede section

This is a well-written lede; a good, brief, summary. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

Publication section

Well-written. Good information. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted.

Meaning of title section

This is an important section; good idea writing it. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

Probably no comma here: "volume's title, and considered". Same with here: "In another letter, in January 1954"; probably should be no comma. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Do you think for "not at all happy about the title 'The Two Towers'" we should italicize the title of the book instead of putting it in single quotes? (It doesn't matter if the source did not italicize the title and put it in single quotes.) Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

All right, I suppose you felt the need to say "(his italics)" since these are not titles of works. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes.

Seems like we badly need a end-of-sentence period between "Tower of the Rising Moon" and "Orthanc". Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done; we do actually use semicolons like that in British English!

Yes indeed. I wish we used British English in America. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of "Between the two towers a Nazgûl flies" (that seems awkward and needs a comma), why not instead "A Nazgûl flies between the two towers." Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

The table is good. Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Noted.

Regarding the diagram: Nice, helpful original artwork work. However, the wording of the caption needs some work because this not at all clear: "Tolkien initially considered four towers, three pairs of which (Orthanc and Barad-dûr, Minas Tirith and Barad-dûr, or Orthanc and the Tower of Cirith Ungol, black lines) could have been the two indicated by the title." I was searching this sentence for two towers and had a hard time finding them, finding too many, finally realizing they were in the word "pairs". Could you please try again? Prhartcom (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

MUCH better. We're so close. It could still be clarified a bit. We don't actually need the word "pair" but I think we need the word "two". Start with a sentence or phrase that summarizes the rest of the caption. Perhaps something like, "Tolkien identified the "two towers". He initially chose different pairs, considering A and B, then C and D, then E and F. He finally settled on G and H." Prhartcom (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

No, he didn't begin by identifying the two, that was precisely what he was having trouble with... I think the pairs thing is actually helpful, if you read it again.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, I understand that he didn't begin that way, but I also understand that he did end that way, and so my suggested opening phrase summarizes the rest of the caption, as per one of my suggestions. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

With respect, he didn't know which two until we reach "But he settled on ...", so the structure is correct as it now is. We agree that it's much improved, i.e. it's clear and comprehensible, so it's time to stop tweaking. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, with great respect to you, it's up to the Reviewer to say when it's that time. Fortunately, we both want the article to be well-written and understandable to a broad audience. We certainly don't have to take my suggested prose. As I understand you won't be making any further improvements here, it is okay with me if we move on from this caption topic. Other editors can improve it in the future. Prhartcom (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Interwoven narratives section

Probably no comma: "as the Fellowship is broken, and" Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Removed.

I am not understanding this sentence at all: "The main quest is not forwarded at all in book 3; conversely, the other quests are not progressed in book 4". Can you please try it again? Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Edited.

Okay. I wonder if it is important to mention what is meant by "main quest" and "other quests" if we are going to bring them up. No help in the Plot section; it never mentions a "quest". Honestly, one who hasn't read the novel won't really understand this sentence talking of quests. Prhartcom (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The quest is introduced in Volume 1, The Fellowship of the Ring. For those coming to Volume 2 by chance, I've added a brief gloss and wikilink. I've also wikilinked Volume 1 at the top of 'Plot' for those readers.

I see your improvement now in Interwoven narratives. That one change explains it to the reader; it clears up my issue. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably drop "and the story". Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done, will think this one over.

Very good second paragraph. I had a little trouble with the second sentence here (at around "know no more"), but it is grammatically correct. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Said 'only'.

Ah, that helped a great deal. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps instead say "in the eucatastrophe at the battlefield of Helm's Deep". Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we can do that.

Perhaps instead of "where things", say "where events". Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Or perhaps not: "events" and "happen" feels close to redundant.

True. Fair enough. I was just trying to think of a less generic word. Prhartcom (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The very good third paragraph wraps this section up nicely. By the way, the last few words of a section should strike a chord; this is being done adequately here. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you.

Reception section

At "gave a positive review, calling it" doesn't say what is reviewed or what "it" refers to (although yes, one would think it should be obvious). Perhaps fix it with "gave the new book positive review, calling it", which has a side benefit to reminding us that the review is from 1955, immediately after the new book was published. Prhartcom (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

At "wrote admiring its narrative", this gives a little trouble to read. Maybe "admiring" needs to be moved somewhere else to help this, replacing with the word "that"? Are we missing the verb "is" right before "weaving"? Prhartcom (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Rearranged.

That fixed it perfectly. Prhartcom (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The last of this section doesn't strike a chord at all. And this is the last few words of the article; it should end nicely. Maybe put a more powerful review at the end? Or (perish the thought) do we need a Legacy section at the end of the article, to really end the article well? Prhartcom (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done (reordered).

OK, better. No new Legacy section, then. :-) Prhartcom (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Plot section

I didn't find any issue here. Well-written and well summarized. People will probably tinker with it over the coming years, as they do. Maybe the last few words of this section could end with "and learns that Frodo is still alive." See how that strikes a chord. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

They've tinkered many times; I straightened it out with the simple rule of one sentence per chapter, which automatically creates balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Good rule. Prhartcom (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the section to Contents? To match the article of the previous book. Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

And what did you think of my suggestion: Maybe the last few words of this section could end with "and learns that Frodo is still alive." See how that strikes a chord. Prhartcom (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Overview

Overall

With that last article improvement, I now believe the article is well-written. Very good writing work.

With that last new ref, I now believe the article is verifiable. Good selection of sources.

I believe the article is broad in its coverage. Although the article of the previous book is fleshed out with more content than this article.

The article is certainly neutral, stable, and illustrated.

I believe the article has no original research, plagiarism, or bias. There are no copyright violations, unreliable sources, edit wars, or untagged images.

I believe this is a good article. Congratulations, Chiswick Chap! It's been an honor to work with you.

If you'd like, I could review another one of your nominations. If so, which one do you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not The Return of the King?

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.