Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• It would be helpful to add context on why a Blackwell Companion on Tolkien is noteworthy, for readers unfamiliar with the publisher/series. Higgins calls the list of writers covered in previous volumes an "academic pantheon"; mentioning a few may help (e.g. Shakespeare, Jane Austen). He also says that Tolkien was the first fantasy writer to be included, which seems notable.
  • Isn't this context in the article already? Do you mean the lead? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I didn't know what the Blackwell series was, and found the context in Reception a bit vague. However, this might cross over from the GA "broadness" criterion to FA "comprehensiveness", so I'll just leave it as a suggestion. (I meant in "Background", or perhaps Book since this is vol. 89 of a series.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @Olivaw-Daneel Which source gives the #89? On a side note, at one point I wanted to write an article about the Blackwell series, but I couldn't find any RS about it, and even compiling a list of works seemed a major challenge. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Added a Context section on the Series, with examples of both general topics and specific authors. I haven't quite said "this represents the literary establishment" but the point should be clear enough "between the lines". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, I was just about to pass the GA before these changes, but this is helpful. @Piotrus: Higgins mentions it (p. 1), it's also in the book (a couple pages before pub. info). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• one of the most prestigious[1] of the reference works dedicated to the field of Tolkien studies – I think "prestigious" needs a bit of elaboration. Per the reviews, there are two factors – the publisher and the lineup of authors – and the first gives it prestige in general academia; the second, a profile in Tolkien studies.
  • Hmmm, this ties to the comment above, doesn't it? I wonder how to do it without needless OR/peacock. Any suggestions? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking closer, the reviews use "prestigious" (or similar) to describe the series rather than this volume. Here's a suggestion that tries to make minimal changes: It is part of the Blackwell Companions to Literature, which have been described as prestigious reference works, and features authors well-known in the field of Tolkien studies. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      @Olivaw-Daneel Nice, implemented. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gloss Andrew Higgins (Tolkien scholar) or add the journal name (otherwise it's not clear why his statement is notable)
  • Done (second). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book

• Publication history – I think this needs a secondary source
  • Wouldn't it be fine per WP:SPS? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps add a citation with OCLC of the paperback, so that there's a link to Worldcat for verification. (I see that OCLC of the hardcover is already in the infobox). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll ping User:Chiswick Chap who added the original citation, also b/c I find sfn citation system difficult to use. On that note, not sure if the fact that some but not all of the refs use sfn is a problem, it probably would be for FA? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Added both WorldCat ref and the OCLC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The volume begins with a "brief" 12-page – I'd either use the full chapter title or leave it out (current version is ambiguous, could be a MOS:SCAREQUOTE)
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand T.C.B.S
  • Done. Kind of sad we can't link to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/T.C.B.S. as I don't think this topic is notable to have its own article on Wikipedia... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinked to section of JRRT's article where the society is described. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Capitalize chapter names that are in quotes
  • I changed them to 'the first', 'the second', etc. Do let me know how it reads now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Extended to clarify the five parts of the book, and their individual chapters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• extensive critical approaches part – I'd add the number of pages
  • I chose to remove the adjective as on second thought it may be editorializng. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• in the "Art" essay – this is the first mention of this essay, so it'd be good to add the section/author
  • Done. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• He commented that while Lee had felt it necessary to apologise - this is the first time the apology is mentioned, so perhaps reword to something like "He observed that Lee had ... and commented"
  • I tried some rewording, see if you like it? I'd be happy to consider a full sentence if you'd provide one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just meant breaking it into 2 parts: He observed that Lee had felt it necessary to apologise for a literary study of Tolkien; in response, Fisher commented it was time to "shake off this defensive note fifty years on" and ignore "those stodgy keepers of the canon who still dismiss Tolkien".[14] Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      More elegant than mine, rewording (just changed to "observing" in the beginning). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fisher's review is well-covered, but the others seem a bit sparse in comparison. Higgins' review seems the longest of them all (20 pages), so I suggest expanding his paragraph per WP:DUE. (Not saying his paragraph needs to be the longest of the 4; just more substantial than present)
  • I've added a bit. Most of his review is a detailed analysis of all of the book chapters. I wonder if a wikified table of contents would be fine to add as a section to our article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the review discusses it in detail I'd say it's within the article's scope. Not going to consider it necessary for GA though. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I'd say it would be undesirable. The Content section picks out the highlights from the best-known scholars; and the Higgins paragraph captures 'the main points' of his review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bueno-Alonso quote seems a bit long; if it's retained in full, I suggest mentioning the book he's referring to (Lee & Solopova [2005])
  • I've added a red link to The Keys of Middle-earth, a cursory glance at GScholar suggests it is a notable book that we need an entry on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, and I see it's not a red link anymore; that article's already quite filled out. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We aim to please... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest glossing the 4 reviewers (it looks like Fisher and Higgins are Tolkien scholars, while the others are more general academics)
  • My reading of WP:RED and WP:GNG suggests we should hyperlink (I assume that's what you mean by "glossing"?) only scholars who appear to be notable. Fisher is linked already, but I lean towards not seeing Cait Coker, Andrew Higgins and Jorge Luis Bueno-Alonso as notable right now (based on a quick check if GScholar shows their works as being often cited, which they do not appear to be). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • By gloss I just mean a brief note (e.g. "Jason Fisher" → "Tolkien scholar Jason Fisher" when he is first mentioned; which is how I see it done in FAs), not a redlink. But this was just a suggestion, not a GA criterion. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added glosses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Image – is this based on the Silmarillion? It'd be good to mention that, and who Thingol and Boldog are (elf, orc?)
  • Wasn't it User:Chiswick Chap who added the image? Maybe they'd like to expand the caption, I have to admit I am not particularly familiar with the topic here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Placing it  on hold. Please ping when done/if you have any questions. Thanks, Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll try to get to this over the next few days (just got hit by like 4-5 GANs being opened in a single week). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivaw-Daneel: – I think we're responded to everything so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great I think it's ready. As mentioned above I was about to promote it before the more recent round of changes, but I hope you feel they improved things. Congratulations on the GA. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]