Talk:Black Speech/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 19:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, Chiswick Chap. I'll be reviewing this article over the following days. I'm looking forward to working you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks. Will get to this shortly – only just noticed because of your edit to the article, actually, as the bot has failed to ping me in the usual way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien (section)[edit]

may be discerned - by who? Perhaps something more descriptive here.

Edited.

but soon mutated into many Orkish dialects - Perhaps change the word "mutate" to "develop". In linguistics, mutation has a very specific meaning.

Done.

The English translation needs a citation

Done ... possibly the best-known lines in The Lord of the Rings ...

Link participle, object, person, plural

Done.

in completive or total form - What does this mean? Is this related to the completive aspect? Is this just some tolkienism?

Yes, it's Tolkien speaking, I've tweaked the table to make this clear. As he says, "-ul" means them, and "-uluk" means "them-all", the whole lot of them, the complete set. I believe without further evidence that he's using "completive" here to mean that it's like a case: dative means "to or for X" and completive means "completing X" in this way of speaking, but as a) it's what he said and b) the meaning is evident to the lay-person, I don't think we need take it any futher.

Why (sic)?

Removed, it's not necessary.

"ishi" might be an inessive case suffix (or clitic). Is there any literature that describes this sentence in such detail? If there isn't, just ignore this.

Found a source that suggests just this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using a table, you could use Template:Interlinear to provide interlinear glossing, which could help better illustrate the sentence. This could potentially be original research if there aren't sources that provide glossing, so if there aren't, just ignore this.

We possibly could, but I wouldn't see it as better; the table is clear, and it expresses Tolkien's explanation directly 1:1. The glosses are Tolkien's, as cited, so there's no originality here.

The Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey wrote that the word durbatulûk encompasses a whole phrase, "to rule them all", illustrating Tolkien's view expressed in his 1931 essay "A Secret Vice" that sound and meaning went together - How is expressing the phrase "to rule them all" in one word as durbatulûk related to sound symbolism? This seems like a non sequitur. You might also want to link to Sound symbolism somewhere in this section.

Edited. Added a link, and given Fauskanger's opinion ([11]), which differs markedly from Shippey's.

I found a source that talks more about the language, but I'll save that for the analysis section. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ashford, perhaps? I've added a bit more from him. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeeed Ashford I found. I took a bit of a break from Wikipedia in the meanwhile, but I'll get back to reviewing the rest of the article now. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In film and music[edit]

The dead link seems to redirect through emjcd.com, which is blocked by several ad blockers and ISPs due to a history of hosting malware. I'd suggest just removing the link in place of the other one in the reference (if they indeed were identical)

The convention is to leave the dead link in place when presenting an archive link.

The phrases are not included in the references. Was this written in the dead link? I'd suggest finding another source to verify this.

Added another source.

I've also gone ahead and replaced a primary source in the section. Hope you don't mind. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis[edit]

Remember to enclose IPA symbols with Template:IPA

Does this apply here? Feel free to mark anything up.

In Podhorodecka's analysis, she did not take into account the length of the vowels. I think the long vowel marking should be removed for /iː/

Gone.

Maybe specify that /i/ and /u/ are front and back vowels, respectively. This is, after all, what she was commenting on in the first place.

Done.

She comments that in aggressive speech, consonants become longer and vowels shorter, so Black Speech sounds harsher - I don't think this is a conclusion she draws in the paper. She points out that aggressive speech is characterised by a higher consonant-vowel proportion than normal speech, which Black Speech has.

Fixed.

like the "i" in "machine" - Per MOS:WAW, example words should ideally be italicised unless they can cause confusion.

Done.

Further, Black Speech contains far more voiced plosives (/b, d, g/) than Elvish, making the sound of the language more violent. - I can't find this claim in the paper.

Paper actually says "To conclude, Black Speech displays - at the level of phonology - effects similar to those characterizing - at the level of phonetics – speech distorted by aggressive emotions. It has a large proportion of consonants, particularly plosives, in relation to other sounds, and the preference for back vowels over font vowels." I've had a go at paraphrasing that, feel free to edit it as you please.

In regards to the Meaning (possible interpretation?) part of the Hurrian table: Is this the meaning of the Black Speech term, or the Hurrian term?

Clarified.

I'd suggest replacing the question marks with something else, even if they are there to signify speculation.

Done.

That's about it. I've gone through the sources, and there isn't anything to make note of there. I was initially hesitant in regards to the copyright status of the Burzum logo, but it seems to be in the public domain.

Yes, it's PD because it's simply the word "Burzum" in a well-known typeface, so it can't be copyrighted.

I would suggest adding alt text to the images to aid in accessibility.

Done.

Other than that, good work. I'll reread the article to assess it after you've rectified the comments here. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the article again, and I made an adjustment to one of the paragraphs. I've checked the article with Earwig's copyvio detector, and the similarities are all quotes from Tolkien, so no copyright violations here. Beyond that, everything looks good. For completeness, I'll list the GA criteria:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

That's a pass. Again, good work! ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.