This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Why not "dragons in Middle-earth" to match similar articles about elements of Middle earth and for natural disambiguation? (t · c) buidhe21:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Buidhe: Yes, that'd be better all round. An editor made an undiscussed mass move of numerous Middle-earth articles a few weeks ago from the Middle-earth to the (Tolkien) format. I suggest they all be moved back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Actually this seems quite clear; Middle-earth is a notable thing in the world (not just in-universe): that's what notability means, after all. Middle-earth is known to hundreds of millions of Tolkien readers, the billion-strong audience of Peter Jackson's six Middle-earth films, and the equally large audience for Amazon's Rings of Power TV series. In short, it must be one of the best-known concepts worldwide in the English language. For the record, I agree with Buidhe that "XYZ in Middle-earth" is clear and precise, and avoids the need for disambiguation. I've moved this one, there are others that also need attention; the disambiguating ones are the hardest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The lead here seems a bit short to me; you could expand it a bit, especially concerning their development, legacy, and role in stories.
Extended.
Lots of duplinks, detected using the usual tool.
Removed several per tool.
Overall, this article's wording seems to assume that the reader is already a pretty thorough reader of Tokien; you use phrases like "Durin's folk" instead of dwarves, and you also mention many characters like Morgoth, Ancalagon, Dain, and For without explaining who they are or how they're relevant to what's being discussed. This would be really hard to follow for someone who hasn't read LOTR and the Silmarillion.
Said and linked 'Dwarves'; added glosses. Ancalagon is introduced as a dragon in the context of this article.
" Legendarium" Link
Linked.
"coeval" seems like an unnecessarily obscure word to use.
Reworded.
"The first winged...Grey Mountains." This part doesn't belong in Development; it's in-universe lore and has nothing to do with the actual development of dragons by Tolkien. Honestly, I don't think it needs to be in the article at all, since it's more something I would expect on a Fandom wiki.
Um, this is an article about "Dragons in Middle-earth", so it seems reasonable to say when they appeared and where they lived.
Link: Christopher Tolkien, Glaurung, Dáin I, Fror. Also many things (link Middle-earth and Morgoth) are linked at second instead of first mention.
Linked CT. Glaurung is described here and we don't cross-ref within an article. Dain doesn't have his own article; nor does Fror. Have linked several first instances, well spotted.
The Ancalagon part is written in excessively flowery language; we're describing the character encyclopedically, not writing LOTR. Examples are "He arose like a storm of wind and fire from the infernal pits", "The Blessed" (a fictional title that I don't see any reason for using), "powerfully hallowed", "At length Eärendil prevailed", "With his last and mightiest defender slain", and "With his last and mightiest defender slain".
Reworded.
You could explain that the Eotheod are the predecessors of the Rohirrim, which at least somewhat more people would remember.
Done.
"The Tolkien scholar...Tolkien names draconitas." This section is a bit disjunct; you could first define what Tolkien meant by draco and draconitas, then mention how he preferred draco, and finally end with how the use of allegorical dragons subsisted into the 20th century.
Reordered and edited.
The images that are there are relevant and have the appropriate copyright statuses; I think that File:BlalockAncalagontheBlack.jpg could also be used to illustrate Ancalagon's section.
It's borderline usable/fan art; let's give it a go and see what happens to it.
The references are mostly well-formatted, but "Ancalagon minor" in ref 12 should be italicized.
We can't use markup in a citation's "title" field.
Ref 10: Supports the existence of Drogoth in The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II, but doesn't support "swayed to Sauron's side when the Mouth of Sauron brought the rescued Fire-Drakes to him" as that's a play-through guide and doesn't describe the plot.
Removed.
Ref 11: Similar to above, supports presence of Urgost, but not "must ally with him against Agandaûr"
Removed.
Ref 12: Link is broken
Updated URL.
Refs 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 support the claims made.
Noted.
Minor note: Ref 16 supports Tolkien being born in Free State, but not specifically Bloemfontein (although that's true, but you have to cite it regardless or change the article wording for source-text integrity).
Fixed.
I haven't read the Silmarillion, but based on my memory of LOTR, I don't see anything wrong with the plot summaries.
Noted.
The article looks good to go now, nothing else I can really criticise; I've made some minor edits, like links, changing the birthplace description to "Free State, South Africa" as I feel like that's the most true to the original source, and italicizing Ancalagon minor in the ref title (since every species name in ref titles is italicized afaik, regardless of whether the original source did that). AryKun (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
