Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo, Chiswick Chap. I'll take this one. I'll will give my initial remarks in a few hours or so. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pre-readthrough remarks
[edit]Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- tor.com is now reactor, update the urls and the publisher name; also, the web page says "Blog", so are you sure it's reliable enough?
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
- The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
- Fixed. I normally use sfn when there are sources (usually books) reused with different page numbers.
- The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
are any free-images available for Book II: say their journey from Rivendell to Amon Hen, or the council of Elrond, or something like that- Nothing usable; all the commercial images (and Tolkien's own) are in copyright.
I'll go section by section
Lead
[edit]- Are numbering like 1), 2) allowed in the text (sorry, I'm not familiar with this part of the MOS)
- I'd say so, but let's do without them.
- I just noticed- the lead gives 3 reasons for the structure, the structure mentions two under "Homely Houses", so you should add it, or if it's under "Cycles and Spirals"- add a subtitle of "continual rewriting"
- I'd say so, but let's do without them.
Title and publication
[edit]- he called "books" along with: comma between books and along
- Added.
Contents
[edit]- I think you should mention the two versions of the Hobbit, and why Tolkien changed it, in the prologue
- Added a footnote.
- Explain Crickhollow
- Glossed.
- an ancient tree - tree-spirit would be better, perhaps?
- Let's try that.
- perhaps the future- phrase this better
- Done.
- Boromir tries to take the Ring from Frodo: I think you should explain the seductive power of the ring here or before.
- Done.
Reception
[edit]I took the liberty of moving the reviews/paragraphs around a bit to make it easier to read and feel more thematic, feel free to revert
- The volume was favourably reviewed by nature writer Loren Eiseley. The literary critic Edmund Wilson however wrote an unflattering review entitled "Oo, Those Awful Orcs!"[18]: Expand on these a little, at least a sentence or two each
- Added on Wilson. Eiseley seems only to have mentioned the book in passing (having seen it before publication), so I've removed the mention.
Structure
[edit]- His friends had to tell him to cut back the Hobbit-talk.: Umm, who said this? Is this part of the preceding quote?
- Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
- Not the pronoun, I meant that it looks like the sentence should be in quotes
- Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
* Frodo's five "Homely Houses": I don't think the diagram needs a heading
- It doesn't have one... perhaps the reordering per the next item will make this clearer.
- I see
- It doesn't have one... perhaps the reordering per the next item will make this clearer.
- I think "groping for a story would be better before deliberately constructed
- OK, let's try that.
- Move the table too, it would be weird to give differences between the two before introducing one of them
- Yes, done.
- Move the table too, it would be weird to give differences between the two before introducing one of them
- OK, let's try that.
Overall
[edit]Will review the rest later. Should pass easily, though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, my review is done. Very well written article Chiswick Chap, I didn't find many changes required. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks!
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |