Talk:Red Book of Westmarch

Title page

In my copy, the lines starting 'My Diary...' and 'Adventures of..' are not centred, but are indented as normal paragraphs. (Whether Tolkien intended the indent or not, that's what got printed.) Hammond & Scull do not mention any alternative layouts in A Reader's Companion, and they are usually quick to pick up typographical oddities. Are there alternative layouts in different editions? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 11:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

They certainly aren't all the same, but you are right that we needn't centre the first lines. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Book of Westmarch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hello again! :) Hoping to get to this within the hour. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 17:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• That should be all! As always, please ping me once you have addressed my concerns so that I can know when to reevaluate. Thanks, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 17:53, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• LunaEatsTuna: Many thanks. I think that's all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Nice work! I am now pleased to pass this article for GA status. Congrats, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 19:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Everything good to go, but earwig appears to pick up one concern:

• "Tolkien's inspiration for this repository of lore was the real Red Book of Hergest, the early 15th century compilation of Welsh history and poetry that contains the manuscript of the Mabinogion" which is identical to the titular entry on Tolkien Gateway.

• Rewritten.

• Should be sufficient now!

Files

All images used are relevant, high quality and copyright-free:

File:Red.Book.of.Hergest.facsimile.png: valid public domain rationale, on Commons;

File:Richardson pamela 1741.jpg: valid public domain rationale, on Commons;

File:Hobbitstale.jpg: valid fair use rationale.

• Noted.

Prose

• "The book is supposedly" – is there a better word choice to describe something stated within fiction other than supposedly?

• Reworded.

• "In the fiction" – is this correct?

• Yes.

• "next to the Shire." – wikilink the Shire.

• Done.

• "from the Elder Days." – could this be wikilinked somewhere?

• Done.

• "A fifth volume containing Hobbit genealogical tables" – would wikilinking this to Tolkien's Middle-earth family trees hold any relevance?

• Linked.

• "The first copy was made by request of King Elessar of Arnor and Gondor" – recommend "The first copy was made on the request of King Elessar of Arnor and Gondor". Please disregard if the former is a British English standard that I am unaware of!

• Done. It was indeed BE.

• "Also added was an abbreviated version of" – pardon my ignorance; what is an abbreviated version?

• Short.

• "(influenced by the ring, now the sinister One Ring)." – wikilink One Ring.

• The Ring is linked in the same paragraph.

• I am blind clearly x.x

• The sentence starting "Tolkien's Red Book, pastiche of scholarship" reads rather unencyclopaedic (i.e. tried-and-true) and with undue weight. Also, what are the apostrophes for?

• Reworded.

• "in the Special Extended Edition." – is there a section of another article somewhere that this could be wikilinked to?

• Linked.

• "he is freed to choose his own 'ending'." – should it be free?

• Not really, no; the emphasis is on the act of setting him free. Reworded.

• Ah, I see now! Nice work.

• There appears to be quite a lot of sections compared to the amount of text. Could some sections regarding the development of the book be merged or removed?

• The first five are all "book" titles, so they earn their keep by showing the process of transmission from text to text, i.e. not just a found manuscript but a whole archive for the scholarly "discoverer" to leaf through.

• Noted.

Refs

Passes spotcheck—no concerns with refs 1, 6, 7 or 10, or the primary refs 4–7.

• Noted.

• Ref 4 should be converted into a cite template for standardisation and consistency reasons.

• Done.

• Some refs have retrieval dates whilst others do not.

• Removed one stray access-date for a book. The web citations do rather need them.

• Agreed!

Other

Templates, See also, External links, nav and cats good to go.

• Noted.

• Does the interwiki template at the way bottom of the article serve any particular purpose?

• Removed, it seems to be redundant to the Wikidata entry.

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.