Talk:Two Trees of Valinor/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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The in-universe parts are written in the past tense, but should be written in the present tense per MOS:WAF/MOS:FICTENSE.
  • Done.
    • Still past tense in the WP:LEAD. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Done.
• This article is more in-universe content than not. Counting the first three sections as in-universe content and the last two as real-world (which is a bit debatable when it comes to the last section), it's about three-fifths in-universe content by word count. That's generally not a good sign, I feel. It typically indicates either that a lot of real-world material is missing or that the article should not exist per WP:NOPAGE.
  • TompaDompa Not sure there's any such rule about fractions; section lengths vary for many reasons, such as how verbose we've been when editing.
  • We know that scholars including Dickerson and Curry independently see the Two Trees as among the most important symbols in the whole legendarium; and we have multiple reliable sources from major Tolkien scholars, so there really can't be much doubt that this is a valid subject.
  • To be practical, I've added more detail in 'Significance' (Dickerson) and in 'Light' (Shippey), so that the 'real-world' analysis now exceeds the 'in-universe' content, and we have more scholars on the subject too. The "in-universe" material is now down to 37%, clearly more comfortable. By the way, the last section, "Elves and Men", consists entirely of scholarly analysis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
    • No rule, but as I said generally not a good sign. Call it a heuristic, perhaps. At any rate, it looks a lot better now. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Many thanks.
• The article uses "Valmar" once and "Valimar" once. This should be made consistent for the reader's benefit. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

Lead

• The Two Trees were apparently of enormous stature – "apparently"?
  • Gone.

• The WP:LEAD is comparatively brief and could be expanded, especially now that the body has been. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

Creation and destruction

• Again one was silver and the other golden. Telperion was referred to as male and Laurelin female. – I would try to combine this into one sentence so the reader doesn't have to keep track of male/female vs. silver/golden.
  • Done.

• Telperion's [...] silvery dew is collected as a source of water and of light. Laurelin has leaves of a young green, like newly opened beech leaves trimmed with gold, and her dew is collected by the Vala of light Varda. – Curry states "Not long after their creation, Varda, another Valië, used the silver dew of Telperion to create bright new stars for the coming of the Eldar." The star detail should probably be mentioned, I feel. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Added.

• The true light of the Trees now resides only in the three Silmarils, jewels created by the Elf Fëanor. – should probably indicate that they were created before the destruction of the Trees and from their light, otherwise this becomes something of a non sequitur to anyone not already familiar with the story. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Added.

• Because the Elves that first come to Valinor especially love Telperion, Yavanna makes a second tree like it to stand in their city of Tirion. – according to Curry, this was from a cutting. I think it matters whether it's an imitation or a descendant. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Added.

• a non-living image of Laurelin – is that "image" as in a three-dimensional replica made out of non-living material or as in a two-dimensional painting/mural/whatever? TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited. Tolkien says it stood in his court, so I've always imagined it as a sculpture.

• The hero Isildur saves a single fruit of Nimloth, and plants seedlings in Middle-earth. During the rule of the Stewards of Gondor, the White Tree of Gondor stands dead in the citadel of Minas Tirith. – the implication is of course that the White Tree of Gondor is a descendant of Nimloth. This should be made explicit. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, added.

Telperion's successors

Laurelin's successors

• Seeing as there are no actual successors of Laurelin, it feels like this section could/should be folded into the preceding one under the common heading "Successors". I'm inclined to think that all the in-universe content should be in a single section, really.
  • Done.

• Turgon's daughter, Idril Celebrindal, had hair likened to "the gold of Laurelin before the coming of Melkor." – seems a bit off-topic.
  • Gone.

Origins

• Now that this section has been expanded with Celtic influences, it seems a bit odd to have two images of the Trees of the Sun and the Moon but none corresponding to the Celtic influences. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Good idea, added an image.

Significance

• Further information: Axis mundi – seems rather tenuous.
  • Replaced.

• It may be worth looking into this source by Richard A. Goetsch which discusses the Trees a little in the context of Environmentalism in Middle-earth. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Added.

• the Dry Tree (pictured) – it is pictured, but that's in the preceding section. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Repositioned the image.

• Curry writes that Tolkien has Middle-earth's best craftsman, Fëanor, devise a means of capturing some of the light of the Two Trees in the Silmarils, the unrivalled jewels that give The Silmarillion its name, and serve as the centrepiece of its narrative – "the unrivalled jewels that give The Silmarillion its name, and serve as the centrepiece of its narrative" is a perfectly reasonable gloss for the Silmarils, but this makes it sound like it's Curry describing them as such when that isn't the case. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• They are so beautiful that the dark lord Morgoth – previously mentioned under the name "Melkor". Not a problem in itself (and appropriate from a perspective of the in-universe chronology), but at some point (here or in the "Creation and destruction" section, though it may be hard to do it without seeming to "shoehorn" it in) it needs to be clarified that it's the same dark lord. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Come to think of it, I might leave out Curry's further description of the Silmarils here altogether—it fits better with Flieger's light analysis (and the addenda others have made to it), where the in-universe history of the Silmarils is already covered in some detail. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Merged.

• Curry's initial "Tolkien's account of the Two Trees [...] reveals the iconic status of trees in both his work and his life." could instead be supplemented with Goetsch's further observations along similar (at least kind of) lines. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Varda catches some of the light, and some of that fills the Silmarils – that makes it sound like Varda, not Fëanor, created the Silmarils. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Edited.

• mentioned by Snorri Sturluson – I would add some more detail for context. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Said it was the Prose Edda.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   See my comments above.

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

   See my comments above.

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

   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):

   All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio (the top result has an equally strong match for the version of the page that existed when that webpage was published, indicating that if there was any copying, it was done in the opposite direction), and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I haven't conducted a thorough literature search to check if anything in particular is missing, but this seems rather barebones. Looks a lot better now.

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

   See my comments above.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   No obvious neutrality issues.

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This feels like a premature nomination. Looks a lot better now.

Ping Chiswick Chap. I don't have time to conduct a thorough literature search right now, so I can't know for sure how much material exists that could and should be added to this article, but if this cannot be substantially expanded with "real-world" content, I'm inclined to think we have a WP:NOPAGE situation here—the material being covered at Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium, Trees in Middle-earth, Christianity in Middle-earth#Light, History of Arda#Years of the Trees, and so on. The in-universe importance of the Two Trees of Valinor is obviously not in question, but do real-world sources cover them substantially from a perspective that is not so indirect that the material could equally well be covered elsewhere? TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

See my reply above. The importance as seen by scholars is by definition out-of-universe: they see the symbols as major in Tolkien's thinking and communication to the reader, which is a very different thing to the Two Trees being major within the story. As for coverage in other articles, I don't think so really. They aren't ordinary Trees-in-Middle-earth; the Cosmology article obviously points here; the Christianity one too, and the history says rather little about their significance. Actually, if other articles didn't mention and discuss the Two Trees, we'd rather wonder whether they were actually important, wouldn't we now. But I agree that more discussion from scholarly sources should help; I've added more material from Dickerson, Barnfield, Cohen, Curry, and Shippey.

TompaDompa: A bit of good news: while I've been able to find more scholarly things to say, the basic message is the same (the trees are powerfully symbolic, and serve as ancestors of other symbols), but getting sharper and more detailed as we go: i.e. the "main points" have in fact been made correctly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, so let's carry on with the nomination. I have made a fair number of additional comments above. TompaDompa (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa: All very useful comments, too. All done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Great! The article passes. TompaDompa (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (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.