Talk:The Keys of Middle-earth

A sample of Lee and Solopova's chapter

This table opens the Reception section and looks very much out of place there? @Chiswick Chap _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Repositioned in Synopsis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Keys of Middle-earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Add a link to Stuart D. Lee in the infobox.

• Already linked.

• My bad, I meant to say in the lead. He's not linked there but his co-author is. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Done.

• Leading sentence is quite long, consider breaking it up.

• Done.

• "but excluding other relevant languages such as Finnish." How is this relevant? I know that Holmes highlights this, but it seems a bit odd to mention something that isn't in the book in the first sentence of its article.

• Well it's now the second sentence; and it helps to delimit the book's scope.

Book

• Consider bringing "literature" inside the piped link to Tolkien and the medieval

• Done.

• I really don't think this sample is necessary. It overweighs this part of the book, it doesn't provide any special insight into what is discussed above and doesn't appear to be especially significant over any other section. Consider removing this and moving relevant analysis from the book to the main article on the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. (I note that this isn't cited there)

• Removed.

• "the runes" Shouldn't this be simply "runes"

• Tweaked. It's 'the runes, the verse, and the names' [that Tolkien uses].

• "Each section [...]" here's another rather long sentence. Consider breaking it up a bit more.

• Done.

• Think you can merge the single-line paragraph about the Hobbit with the subsequent one about the Lord of the Rings.

• Done.

• De-link the second reference to Beowulf.

• Done.

• You mixed up Kari Sperring's first and surnames. Switch "Kari" and "Sperring" in the template.

• Fixed.

• Are there any more secondary sources that could be pulled from for this section? Obviously primary sources are fine for self-descriptions, I'm just wondering, as it helps with noting which parts of the book were considered most notable by others.

• Not really, and in any case the Synopsis is by definition primary.

Reception

• Try and standardise the tense you're using, as it sometimes bounces between present and past.

• Done.

• "The line-by-line translations [...]" Make it clearer that this is Marsh saying this, not Wikivoice.

• Done.

• Add an ISSN for the Medieval Review.

• Done.

• "It offers [...]" Again, make it clearer this is Wilcox saying this, not Wikivoice.

• Done.

• "Tolkien's writings Holmes" I'm assuming there's meant to be a full stop between "writings" and "Holmes".

• Added.

• "The selection of texts is in his view good" Maybe rearrange so it starts with "In his view, [...]"

• Done.

• Might be worth merging the two paragraphs about reviews from Tolkien Studies together, especially as the second one is only a single sentence.

• Done.

• De-link the second instance of Tolkien Studies.

• Fixed.

• Is there any reason why Kari Sperring's review isn't cited here?

• Added.

Checklist

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

---

This was a pleasure to read, as someone who is a fan of Tolkien's work but who hasn't yet tackled the scholarly study and analysis of that work.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   Some minor grammatical issues, particularly with inconsistency of past/present tense in the Reception section. Dealt with.

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   Very nice work distinguishing between the footnotes that pull from the primary source and those that pull from reviews.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   All the quotes have been verified from the sources.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All the quotes and excerpts are properly attributed.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Could add notes from Kari Sperring's review to the Reception section.

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Not a single revert since it was first posted last year.

6. 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):

   Cover falls under fair use here.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Make sure to add alt text for any images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   Holding for now, but only because of the most minor of prose issues, noted above. Once these have been dealt with, I'll pass this. Excellent work.

   @Chiswick Chap: Passing now, as all the major issues have been addressed. Thanks for taking this all on and great job, once again! --Grnrchst (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)