Talk:Minas Tirith

Notable? Restore?

@Chiswick Chap: Academic sources: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/20/article/182557/summary , https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol13/iss2/8/ and https://www.jstor.org/stable/26810634 suggest this is likely notable. I suggest restoring even now and tagging with {{sources exist}} if you don't have time to add an analysis section quickly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've given it a go, using those and other sources that I've been collecting over the past few years. It's quite a substantial article, and surprisingly different in character from Gondor even though they inevitably share some materials. I'll reduce the MT section of Gondor to a summary with "main" link now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Ligaturama (talk · contribs) 15:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll tackle this one. Having never read more than 20 pages of LOTR, I'm in an excellent position to judge if it's appropriate for a broad audience!

Many thanks – a demanding criterion! Remember that the key obligation for GA is simply to cover "the main points". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

• Not a long way from the GA criteria
• No apparent copyright violations
• No cleanup banners
• No edit warring
• No previous GA nomination

References spot check

I'll list the references I've checked by their numbers in this revision: 2023-12-17T18:28Z

• 2: Some of this paragraph is supported by the text or a reasonable interpretation of the illustrations, but I think some of it is from the novel and not attributed. Not necessarily a problem per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, but since the other paragraphs have primary source refs, it would be consistent to include that on this paragraph too, or it looks like this one is purely using Fonstad. Hopefully a quick fix. Examples of unsupported claims:
  • "Originally constructed by a king of yore"
  • "the Steward of Gondor who had it re-built"
  • "The Seeing-stone of Minas Tirith, used by Denethor in The Return of the King, rested in a secret chamber at the top of the Tower."
    • Fonstad is the 'geography' ref, and yes, we need Tolkien for the rest, adding it now. BTW she does show the Palantír (the seeing-stone) at the top of the tower.

• 4: – it would be nice to have page references, especially since you quote the source directly several times.
• 7: although I think you only need ref 8
• 8:

• 11:
• 15: Not clear what this one is supposed to be supporting as the sentence is simply about Garth's interpretation.

• Ah, it should be with the next sentence: moved. It's really background as readers have the Dry Tree article already if they want detail on that subject.

• 18 and 19: Not clear what the DVD ref (19) is for, is it the director's commentary or something? The "domed buildings" aren't mentioned in 18. Also, 18 just redirects to their homepage so that should have an archive URL (this works for me: [1])

• Yes, the commentary; probably not necessary but some people like to have the link. Added the archive, thanks.

• If the commentary mentions the domed buildings as a Byzantine style then can we have a rough timestamp and/or quotation from the commentary? It's a long film to cite the commentary in its entirety.

• Replaced the refs: found a quote/ref from the concept designer Alan Lee, which fits in with the next sentence about Lee's work.

• 22:

GA criteria

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:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: Use of tables is proportionate and presents the information clearly.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

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:

Notes

1A

Lead

• "rising some 700 feet to a high terrace, the Citadel at the seventh level" - I'm not clear from this exactly what the Citadel is; if it's the name for the entirety of the seventh level then it would be clearer with a comma after "Citadel" ("a high terrace, the Citadel, at the seventh level".
  • Done.

• "Atop this is the 300 foot high Tower of Ecthelion, the White Tower," - change to "300-foot Tower" and I suggest removing its other name "the White Tower" from the lead to keep it more concise.
  • Done.

• "have all produced realistic-seeming paintings of the city." - I see why you've used the term "realistic-seeming" (because it's not a real place), but I think "realistic" serves the same purpose.
  • Done.

Description

• The sentence "The city is sometimes called "the White Tower", a synecdoche for the city's most prominent building in its Citadel, the seat of the city's administration.": is the Tower the seat of the city's administration, or is the Citadel? I think this sentence says the latter but it leads us on a bit, might be clearer with a rephrase.
  • The text says correctly that the White Tower is the most prominent building in the Citadel. If you're asking whether the White House, Washington, or Joe Biden means the centre of US Government, the answer is yes, yes, and yes.

• "each gate faced a different direction from the next, facing alternately somewhat north or south" - if it's supported by the text that this is to make it harder for invaders or whatever then that would be a nice detail to add here.
  • Added.

• I don't think "throne-room" should be hyphenated, even if JRR had some Norse-linguistic justification for doing so.
  • Fixed.

• Wikilink The Return of the King
  • Done.

Identifications with historical or mythical cities

• " some "600 miles south [of Hobbiton]," - this is the first mention of a place called Hobbiton, so maybe a little extra like "[of the Middle Earth village of Hobbiton]" would help.
  • Done.

• " Boromir and Faramir, play the roles of Hector,..." - could do with a clause linking Troy to this character of Hector (i.e. that there's this story called the Iliad that's about the Trojan wars, and Hector and Paris are characters in it)
  • Added some context; we need to avoid going too far down the various rabbit-holes here.

• I assume the Ravenna Basilica image is not next to the Ravenna section because it will shunt the Aeneas image down, but wanted to note that here in case it's a mistake.
  • Yes.

• Can link to Pippin Took
  • Done.

• Is Gondor a Númenórean kingdom? I'm guessing yes from context but it would be easier if it were spelt out a little. Links with my point on describing the city's foundation below (3A).
  • Spelt out.

• In the Constantinople table, would swap the columns so they are in the same order (real place on the left) as the previous one.
  • Done.

• Also in the Constantinople table, you've linked "siege" but it occurs a few times previously without a link.
  • Linked at 1st mention in text.

Analysis

• What does it mean for a tree to be dry?
  • Yes, dead.

• What's the deal with this sapling Aragorn brought, was it a cutting that he'd taken previously? It seems a bit strange that we have this Special Named Tree and then Aragorn rocks up with another one.
  • Glossed.

• Is it relevant to the White Tree that the fruit of the Dry Tree grants 500 years of life? If not, I'd cut that sentence, and if so, I'd mention the relationship.
  • I guess it's tangential, an aspect of the Dry Tree's power. I think we can lose it.

• Similarly the Dry Tree image mentions it being a symbol of resurrection but this isn't mentioned as an aspect of the White Tree
  • I've said rebirth of the monarchy; readers can draw their own parallels between that and 'resurrection and new life'; Tolkien being a Catholic certainly wouldn't have used the R-word lightly.

Adaptations

• "Mont Saint-Michel, France" to "Mont Saint-Michel in France"
  • It's correct as it is.

• The sentence about the trebuchets sticks out a bit, are there any other things worth noting here?
  • Not really, I think; Jackson was keen for it to match Tolkien's description.

• Should "Wizard" be capitalised?
  • Yes, they're a race, also called Istari.

• "likening Gondor to the culture of ancient Egypt" - this hasn't been mentioned previously but seems like it should have been in the Identifications section if it's notable
  • It's not reflected in the architecture of the city; the only feature I can recall that is clearly Egyptian in style is the design of the King's crown, not relevant to this article.

• " Lee chooses instead to look Within Minas Tirith," - why is this italicised and "within" capitalised?
  • Fixed.

3A

Description

• I think we need an overview of the city's role and significance in LOTR, as parts of the plot are referenced directly in the post-Description sections (Boromir/Faramir, final siege, "the centuries that Gondor was ruled by the Stewards" etc.).
  • I see what you mean, but we have extensive coverage of the plot in other articles, and the later sections just mention what they need as context. I think that's the right amount here.
    • I'm not going to press this point too much because I see what you mean, and nobody wants the various books' plots repeated in countless articles, but I do think a section under Description like "Key Events" which covers the city's foundation, the rule of the Stewards, the final siege and what happened with Boromir and Faramir (plus whatever other bits and pieces are referred to later) would really tie the article together a bit more and make it more understandable in and of itself.
      • Added a timeline.

• The city's foundation is referenced in the "Ancient Rome" section but it would be much clearer if you explained in "Description" what happened
  • This is just a description of the city as seen in LOTR, the only book that deals with it in any detail.

Identifications with historical or mythical cities

• In the intro could we have a little more on why we should expect Minas Tirith to have a parallel in the real world? Was Middle Earth generally modelled on real Earth, and do other locations have parallels too? To this end I think the sentence that's here - "Scholars, following various leads in Tolkien's fantasy and letters, have identified Minas Tirith..." - has its subject and object the wrong way around; something like "Tolkien's works and letters point to Minas Tirith being modelled on various historical or mythical cities, and scholars have..."
  • Hm, interesting. Tolkien avoided source inquiries as far as he could, saying scholars should avoid that at least while he was alive; and saying that there are pointers is rather strong, as most readers (and many scholars) notice nothing classical in his writings at all. But you're right, he used many sources. I've added a bit of context, and have led in and wikilinked the relevant articles at the start of the section.

• "In a letter, Tolkien stated that Minas Tirith, some "600 miles south [of Hobbiton], is at about the latitude of Florence. The Mouths of Anduin and the ancient city of Pelargir are at about the latitude of ancient Troy."" So this doesn't appear to be saying anything about Minas Tirith being like Troy, it's saying these two other places, one of which is a different city, are like Troy.
  • Good catch. Glossed "in the south of Gondor", i.e. these places are related to Minas Tirith, and Gondor is alluded to in the same breath as Troy.

• You really tease us with "which in her view suggests a Germanic myth of a restored Roman Empire.", could we have a sentence or two on the connection? Is there enough for the Analysis section?
  • That was about all she said when expanding on the Ravenna connection. Tolkien's mythology for England is "Germanic"; the "English" Hobbits are looking at the "Roman" city much as the barbarians of the early Middle Ages might have looked at a restored Rome. I don't think we can say any more in the article, really, than is there already.

• "the only culture within [the Anglo-Saxons'] historical memory that had made places like Minas Tirith was the Roman Empire." - but the books were published in the 1950s, by which time we had dozens more stone buildings. We might need a paragraph on the historiography of the novels and why (or whether) they are set in an analogue of Anglo-Saxon Britain but also Byzantium/Troy/etc.
  • If we take the Shire as English, then Rohan is Anglo-Saxon/Old English, and the only stone cities in old English ken were the ruins of the Roman Empire. The Ruin is about Bath, for instance. But I'm not sure we can or should say any of this; the key comparison is Gondor/Rome, and the Anglo-Saxon perspective is an aside here. I suppose it might be a footnote pointing to England in Middle-earth#A reconstructed prehistory.
    • I really think that if you're going to mention it then it needs a bit of explanation, even in footnote form, in order to achieve "making it understandable to an appropriately broad audience". It's the first mention of an Anglo-Saxon perspective, and without the context that the lands are an analogue for Anglo-Saxon Britain makes it seem completely irrelevant. I think it's a totally legitimate inclusion, and interesting, but it just needs that extra bit of info provided.
      • Ok, I've added a brief explanatory gloss. Very conscious that anything said leads to more questions, in full rabbit-hole fashion! With any luck the wikilinks will serve to divert the majority of 'em.

• "Lisa Anne Mende, in Mythlore, contrasts the happy eucatastrophes which rescue Minas Tirith ... with the unmitigated disasters of the Fall of Gondolin and the other Elvish cities of Beleriand in The Silmarillion. She notes Tolkien's Christianity, and describes the "first victory of Evil" in The Silmarillion as "resolved into the harmony of the victory of Good" in The Lord of the Rings." Can we have more on the contrast? Also the note about Christianity seems very throwaway, I really think that needs expanding a little if it's worth mentioning.
  • Glossed the two Dark Lords.
  • Added gloss and wikilink on Christianity and Middle-earth.

6A

• The image of the fall of Constantinople has a notice on it saying it needs a rationale and different tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Constantinople_1453.jpg
  • Added tags.

6B

• I like most of your captions, I think they add a nice amount of flavour. The only one I'd suggest reviewing is the Dry Tree; I'd put first that the image is a depiction of the Dry Tree (so we don't think it's art of the White Tree), then the date, then the extra text.
  • Added "(pictured)" and date to be crystal clear.

• The Nasmith painting would be a great infobox image if we could justify using it in higher resolution and if that's allowed by WikiProject Middle-earth
  • It's a fine painting, but we're limited to a non-free image of 100kBytes.

Misc

• [the Minas Tirith page] is currently a redirect to Gondor#Minas Tirith, should it redirect to this page instead?
  • Done, not part of the GAN.

• The short description might want updating: Gondor's is "Fictional kingdom of the Men of Westernesse in Tolkien's Middle-earth" which is a bit more descriptive than this article's. Doesn't look like there's guidance on this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards.
  • Short descriptions must be short; the Gondor one is getting a bit, er, Byzantine (I've now trimmed it).
• If there's a nice (shortish) passage from LOTR that sets the scene of Minas Tirith then you could add it as a quotebox in the "Description" section for flavour.
  • Why not. Done.

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.