Talk:Armies and Hosts of Middle-earth warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armies and Hosts of Middle-earth warfare article.
Article policies
Middle-earth Wikiproject 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.
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 must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Armies and Hosts of Middle-earth warfare was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: April 25, 2008

Contents

[edit] deletion request

Please give criteria for deletion request, or remove request. ThanksTttom1 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding estimates

Please reference numbers cited either by direct quote from the books, or using straight forward calculation of host and armies. For example: its stated in The History of Middle-earth, Vol. V, (1987), p. 137 that there were a thousand Balrogs at the Fifth Battle, no greater number is given and Tolkien later suggests elsewhere there may have been far less, although a large number is suggested in Lost Tales II as well. Nor is there any indication of 50,000 dragons.Tttom1 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, please consider 'due weight' policy when commenting in the body of article rather than a footnote for authorial margin notes vs. completed manuscripts.Tttom1 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article is extensively sourced and referenced using both Primary Sources, books written by J.R.R.Tolkien and Secondary Sources, for the most part books edited and written by Christopher Tolkien that use both the primary sources and other secondary sources such as author's notes, letters, manuscripts, etc. and secondary sources in other publications Atlas ofMiddle-earth, Mythlore. From wiki guidlines: "Definition of secondary sources: In historical scholarship, a secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources." As this is the section 'writing about fiction' refers to, its application therefore rules.Tttom1 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Also note the following :

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction): "As the Wikipedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, Wikipedia articles must conform to U.S. copyright laws. It has been held in a number of court cases that any work which re-tells original ideas from a fictional source, in sufficient quantity without adding information about that work, or in some way analysing and explaining it, may be construed as a derivative work or a copyright violation. This may apply irrespective of the way information is presented, in or out of universe, or in some entirely different form..." Tttom1 18:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

The description of the various organizational levels seems to me to be excessive and an attempt to extract detailed structure where there is none. The vagueness of the command structure and especially the size of individual units is so large that it can't qualify as anything even remotely standardized. For example, the titles of commanders are so non-specific that a "captain" or "orc-chieftain" can command anything from 10 to 50,000+. With this much vagueness, it's very obvious that Tolkien had no structured military hierarchy in mind.

Peter Isotalo 06:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on GAN

Just a heads-up to the editors of this article regarding the GAN. There are significant issues with the article that will hinder a successful nomination. Copy editing is one of them. Take these sentences:

"In the War of the Ring the Siege of Gondor and the Battle of Pelennor Fields is a good example of a mix of precise military detail and panoramic narrative. The catalogue of companies from the outlying provinces that come to the aid of Gondor is numbered at less than three thousand with company sizes ranging from a stated 100 to 700 men."

These corrections are immediately obvious:

"In the War of the Ring, the Siege of Gondor and the Battle of Pelennor Fields are a good examples of a mix of precise military detail and panoramic narrative. The catalogue of companies from the outlying provinces that come to Gondor's aid is numbered at less than 3,000, with company sizes ranging from a stated 100 to 700 men."

And that's just straight-forward subject-verb agreement and punctuation (with a few wikilinks tossed in). These two sentences are typical. Two of the sections, "War of the Ring" and "Armies of Middle-earth..." , lack so many necessary commas, its difficult to identify when ideas stop and start. They are also challenging to read because they lack any kind of paragraph structure. And despite the large number of footnotes, it appears to need even more. The sample sentences above ends with "... stated 100 to 700 men", but there's no citation to support those numbers. This problem recurs throughout the article.

Two other things I noticed quickly: (1) the Lead is not supported at all by the article's body, and (2) this is a common problem in the article itself. Read WP:Lead for guidance, and also look at problems such as are found in the section "War of Wrath in the First Age": not once in that section do the words "War of Wrath" occur, and there is no explanation as to what the War is.

I suggest removing the article from the GAN process before a reviewer fails it for you. I'll come back and do some copy editing.Just some thoughts.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Great any help is welcome, made some of the changes suggested (haven't gotten to all commas) and will rework lede.Tttom1 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I found this article from its GA candidacy as well. Just curious for the reasoning to not have any sections but instead rely on subsections. Also, why the forced table of contents? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well doesn't the TOC look good where it is? also what do you mean by subsections and sections? LOTRrules (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Have, I hope, added a clarifying section to article. Does this make it clearer? I'm not sure what you mean by 'forced TOC'?Tttom1 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

GAN should be retracted
Forcing the TOC to that location just didn't look very aesthetic. Also, the article was one section with the rest organized as subsections. If that's the correct organization, then the first section should be merged with the Lead and the subsections promoted to sections. However, based on a scan of the material, it appears two top level sections are appropriate. I changed it accordingly.

This article still has many issues that should have been resolved before it was nominated for GA, the most serious being sources and copy editing. A number of weeks ago I pointed out the problems with just one paragraph; since then no one has done much to fix even those, much less the rest of the article. Here's another problem. The same paragraph says, "... the Siege of Gondor and the Battle of Pelennor Fields are good examples of a mix of precise military detail ....", However, just two sentences later it says, "The numbers of the original garrison of Minas Tirith and the forward garrison of Osgiliath and Faramir's company of Ithilien are not specified." That seems contradictory and indicative of coherence problems throughout the article.

I suggest that the GAN be retracted, since that will reflect better on the article than to have it turned down. Then continue to improve it (significantly) before renominating it. Just a suggestion.
Jim Dunning | talk 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, whoops. Sorry. I don't read the talk page before grading as not to be skewed, I just scan the TOC for any conflicts, so I didn't see this. Though I differ with you on that it reflects worse on the article. The article reflects on itself, regardless of how many shiny stickers it did or didn't get. The only way to reflect good on the article is to continue its improvement. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 25, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Semi-Pass, overall the article fares well in this respect, consistent and interesting writing style. More specifically, it could use more paragraph breaks. I would also recommend an introduction rewrite, it is factually barren. Yes, it is amazing that far-off battles won't be described in detail while near ones are, but sort of obvious.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail. Not enough sources, and a surplus of phrases like: "Tolkien's primary purpose is to", "it obviously doesn't have" with either limited or no backing. The [citation needed] tags are also a clear indicator that this article is yet unready for GA status.
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. The article is limited to army sizes, numbers and terminology. Tactics, strategy, politics of warfare?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. Within the realms of the book POV is OK, and outside this article remains mainly factual.
5. Article stability? Pass, but I'd recommend a spell-checker during writing the article rather than a plethora of "typo" edits afterwards. This isn't a part of the mark, just a friendly recommendation.
6. Images?: Fail, there aren't any! Even though they may be fair use, how about one or two movie screen grabs? I'd personally recommend one from each movie, and at least one from the supplementary materials for LOTR (there's no shortage).

Please don't take this as some sort of assault on the article, and don't think this lessens its value.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— +Hexagon1 (t) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis and list of improvements. Images shouldn't be hard to get. Does need proof-reading by fresh eyes, I welcome any corrections which I'm sure it needs, but as the primary editor of this - I just can't see them except here and there. I recall at the inception of the article it was part of another article and moved with this title suggested. The title is seems too broad for body of article - say: 'Armies and Hosts of Middle-earth Warfare'. Is it possible to change an article title and narrow the focus? Tactics and strategy politics etc over 3 Ages sounds like several articles. Will try to add some paragraphs now.Tttom1 (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If you wish you can move it. It should be no problem, though I'd recommend calling it simply 'Armies and Hosts of Middle-Earth'. Don't forget to fix double redirects and create alt-spelling redirs to your new title. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder subsections?

Would it be better to reverse the order of the "Armies and Hosts through the three ages of Middle-earth" section to this?

  • 2.1 War of Wrath in the First Age
  • 2.2 The War of the Last Alliance in the Second Age
  • 2.3 The War of the Ring

So it's chronological?
Jim Dunning | talk 03:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, the logic of it seemed to follow the reverse chronology at the time.Tttom1 (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'd have to agree. The sections should be put in order and it is better for the article as a whole. LOTRrules (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done it. LOTRrules (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

The Lead appears to need some attention to ensure it meets the goals and requirements of WP:LEAD. Much of what is in the Lead is not in the article (e.g. "Tolkien, as a writer, adopts various modes in the books from the very conversational raconteur of The Hobbit to the medieval, or biblical-like, historian of The Silmarillion to the novelist of The Lord of the Rings and even to the epic poet of The Lays of Beleriand.") and the key points of the article are not fully summarized in the Lead (I'm thinking that much of the article consists of descriptions of various armies from a number of Ages, but there is no direct reference to that in the Lead). I'll try taking a shot at this over the weekend.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I see its a problem but I'm stuck for a good solution. Somehow it should come around directly to the subject of the Armies and Hosts. It sets up the layout of the 3 ages ok, but flops as intro to the next part of article.Tttom1 (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Images and content

I have added a few images to illustrate the armies of both good and evil. LOTRrules (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there are enough significant images? LOTRrules (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
They look good & most are pertinent.Tttom1 (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of bringing the Nazgul in or the Fellbeast, especially the Fellbeasts. LOTRrules (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put the Fellbeasts in. LOTRrules (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "H"ost and "h"ost

If "host" is to be used does it need to be in capital letters or just used in capital letters when introducing a host of something?

i.e. the "Host of Easterlings" could be left as it is whereas the "Host that" could be changed to the "host that" LOTRrules (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Also does the three in "Armies and Hosts through the three ages of Middle-earth" need to be in caps since they were eras? I mean the Second Age is labelled in caps. LOTRrules (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This hits on a question I have about the article title: should "hosts" be capitalized? I don't think so, since it is being used as a generic term there as opposed to a specific reference (such as the "Host of Morannon"). Third Age. on the other hand, should be capitalized; this would be consistent with its use in the fiction and criticism.
Jim Dunning | talk 12:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't read the "three ages" question carefully. I, too, have the same question. I retract what I said above since that would apply to reference to the Third Age specifically. I'll scan through some of the stories and criticsm I have and see how others have handled reference to "the three (or four) ages of Middle-earth".
Jim Dunning | talk 12:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to "h"ost since their names aren't actually Host. But I'm not sure...should it be changed back? LOTRrules (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use 'Host' or 'Army' as part of a title when referring to a specific formation and 'host' or 'army' when referring to them generally, to help differentiate which was being referred to. I think there are a couple of occasions when Tolkien does that but its not consistent throughout. I imagine Host of Morannon, like say, Army of the Potomac should be capped, on the other hand, 'host of the Valar' in the Sil. is not capped while 'Host of the West' in LoTR is capped.Tttom1 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should cap it when introducing a host of something but leave it out on the plural terms and gerenrically. LOTRrules (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be capped when 'Host of Something' of 'Army of Something' to follow standard usages like 'Army of the Potomac' and not follow Tolkien's editors as they are inconsistent doing both at different times. So, 'Host of the Morannon', 'Host of the West', 'hosts of Morgoth', 'armies of Angband', 'host of Orcs' and cap & hypenate Orc-host, Morgul-host, Orc-legion. No cap when referring to a generic army or host.Tttom1 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep that'll be fine. LOTRrules (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wolves

I don't ever recall Tolkien refering to wolves just Warg Riders so should "Hosts of Wolves and other beasts" be deleted? And how can you tell the "Hosts of Easterling Men – 50,000–100,000" were present? LOTRrules (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

plenty of references to wolves & werewolves, Battle of Five Armies from the Hobbit, one of the 5 armies is that of the wolves, "Upon one side were the Goblins and the Wild Wolves..." so an army of wolves. Sil p192, 5th battle: "There came wolves and wolfriders...", "Yet neither by wolf, nor by Balrog, nor by Dragon...", p164 "Sauron brought werewolves - still chasing down easterlings refs, it lies in the phrase in Sil p.190 "the hosts of Maedhros" at 5th battle. Incidentally note the inconsistent capping of Wolf/wolf.Tttom1 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
As long as you get the refs it'll be fine, but I also meant the number of wolves fighting. Also could wolves refer to the Wargs since I did hear that Wargs were middle-earth wolves or cross breeds of wolves that can only originate from middle-earth. I think Tolkien was refering to Wargs. Shall we put Wolves/Wargs? LOTRrules (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Wolves, Wargs and Werewolves while obviously related are not interchangeble. Tolkien distinguishes between Wolf and Warg in the Hobbit and describes Werewolves as "fell beasts inhabited by dreadful spirits that he (Sauron)had imprisoned in their bodies." However that is, the estimates for Morgoth in the WoW are a toss in as that section is specifically about the Host of the Valar. So if you wish to make it Wolves/Wargs or delete those and estimates for the Easterlings I don't think it will unbalance that section at all.Tttom1 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)