# Talk:Character pairing in The Lord of the Rings

This review is transcluded from Talk:Character pairing in The Lord of the Rings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DMT Biscuit (talk · contribs) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments to be added. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Please note that I'll have limited availability for a few days. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Availability is ok - no rush.


### Style
While I respect an idiosyncratic style - or better yet an auter hand - the present style leaves the material somewhat opaque. The headings are less than forthcoming. Just observing them and the mention of "a problem" following context bewilders more than it does entice, intrigue or inform. I similar struggle inferring "Evil spiders, opposed to light" upon the onset. I also find the segmenting of the articles sections to be obtrusive. I'd recommend you round off it as you have with "Time travel in The Lord of the Rings", per your discretion. DMT Biscuit (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've trimmed the headings in hope of making them more inviting. Not sure what you mean by segmenting, nor why you're speaking of more than one article? This topic is sharply distinct from all the rest so I'm not sure what it'd be a segment of... You are right that I did the time travel article, and it seems to have come out well, but it was a very different topic ... what aspect of it were you hoping I'd apply here? We can certainly put a different slant on this article if you'd explain what it is that you feel is not as clear as it should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Forgiveness, I wrote articles when I meant to say sections. I hope that's clearer; what I mean is I find an overall heading entitled Character pairings with the headings following context being subheadings would be better for readability. Sorry for the confusion.
Ah, thanks. Grouped subsections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


### Lede
The lede could do with some expansion. Another paragraph should be good. Hone in more on the specific pairings.

@Chiswick Chap: Thoughts on this comment? I don't personally like to exercise demands so If you disagree a sufficient rationale is all I need. DMT Biscuit (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Managed to find a moment to get it done. Hope that's better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


### Prose
"as such" - I'd recommend cutting this. It implies a causal link between Roman Catholicism and themes of morality and nature of evil which is simply erroneous.
Cut.
"Cirith Ungol," - This comma seems misplaced.
Cut.
"Germanic king" - wikilink Germanic kingship.
Done.
Christina Fawcett is a scholar of...? Best clarify to avoid dreaded weasle words. DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Glossed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


### Spotchecks
Regarding sources checked: all's well. DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)


### Misc
By no means necessary for the article to pass, just curious: Bettridge seems critical of a Jungian interpretation, stating that it renders literature "dull and unnesscary" - do you think this is worth including? DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's more than B's personal dislike of allowing science into literary criticism, i.e. science can explain everything from blushing to amorance, leaving only trivial narration for the arty types ... I doubt if saying that would benefit readers really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. DMT Biscuit (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
That's me - well-researched and well-written, with only some blemishes in aesthetics. DMT Biscuit (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

DMT Biscuit I extended the lead, I think that's everything now! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)