Talk:The Road to Middle-Earth/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Will review this one over the next couple of days. —Kusma (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on, I'll respond promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall progress

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

Prose and content review

Looks pretty good overall already, but I do have some comments.

• • Many thanks.

• The lead is quite short, perhaps give us a little more of the content and why it is the best book.
  • Extended, and mentioned the award.

• Synopsis: Shippey's tenure at the University of Oxford, teaching the same syllabus: this is a little bit at odds with what we find at Tom Shippey, where we have the same syllabus as at Leeds. Not a contradiction, but it makes me wonder whether this was oversimplified by your source.
  • The other article also says he used Tolkien's syllabus, in fact both those at Leeds and at Oxford (the two may not have been identical but I expect they looked rather similar). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • OK.

• his belief in its ability to show what happened as the Gothic empire fell in the 4th century I'm not totally sure what we are talking about here. For example, Gothic empire is a red link. Is this about filling some of the Dark Ages with story that kind of comes out correctly from a philological point of view? The map hints at something exciting, but I'm not sure I understand at what.
  • Edited to mention Mirkwood, the object indeed of much excited philological speculation. People can read more about that subject over there.
    • Fine.

• (Tolkien rebuilt a picture of Elves and Dwarves from the available clues are these real world history clues or philological clues?
  • Philology is real enough (as were the Huns and Goths), but what its clues correlate with in the distant past is another matter. We don't have to believe there really were Elves and Dwarves: what is certain is that these were written about.

• democratisation/fresh audience is written as a contrast, but aren't they the almost the same?
  • He means by democratisation that Jackson is toning things down (or perhaps up, adding violence and action) to put bums on seats. Getting an audience may be a result of changing the story in that way, but isn't the same thing. The linked article discusses the question of faithfulness to the book, among much else.

• I like the "asterisk poem" bit, but you could perhaps explain why they are called "asterisk" (I can make an educated guess, but an encyclopaedia should spell it out) and cite a little bit of sources about this, especially if this is not the only place where they appear.
  • Added a gloss, and a link to Songs for the Philologists.
    • Much better, fascinating stuff.

• The synopsis section could perhaps be fleshed out a little more (I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about the Silmarillion), and maybe citing page numbers wouldn't hurt (as in J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century)
  • Added a bit. Page numbers are not required for plot summaries.

• Publication history: It seems to me that these are exactly the publishers of Tolkien's works, at least the British, Polish and German ones? You are mixing a bit the three British editions with all international ones (especially the US one feels slightly out of place). I'm not sure whether you should split and first talk about the three British editions and their different content and then about all the foreign ones. Is it worth mentioning anything of what Shippey says about HoME (or does he just update some of his conclusions with more data)?
  • Rearranged, copy-edited, and re-paragraphed.

• You should mention in the text that it is the film version of LoTR, not of the Hobbit.
  • Done.
    • Actually, you mention the films twice, once in "Synopsis", once in "Publication history", which is slightly repetitive. You should probably move the explanation which Peter Jackson films we are talking about to first mention. (There are also some duplicate links, mostly in this context. I'm not strictly against duplicate links, but these are a bit too close to each other).
      • Removed the second mention and duplicate links.

• You could consider talking about Shippey's background (and the way his life intersected with or followed that of Tolkien) in a "Background" or "Author" section before "Synopsis" and to move all content about him there.
  • Done.
    • I think this is much better now.

• Reception: Yates basically explains why the book is how it is (more "background" than reception?). Did she like it?
  • That was the style of many reviews at that time. Reading between the lines of "the rigorous tone", I'd guess "not very much, but impressed"... but I doubt I can say that in the article!

• - Tolkien's profession - MOS:DASH would prefer spaced endashes instead of spaced hyphens, I believe. Or possibly unspaced emdashes.
  • Done.

• See also: Not sure about the relevance of Beowulf and Middle-earth here. J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century contains many interesting things, including some comments about Road, that you could consider adding here, especially Birzer's comparative review of the two books.
  • Annotated the See also entry; the section is per policy meant for things that are close to the article's topic but at a slight tangent, and that seems to suit this entry exactly. Good suggestion about JRRT/AotC, but that means I've now used Birzer in the main text, and have had to remove it from See also.
    • I was hoping for slightly more than "this is more scholarly than the other book", but we can't have everything I guess.

• Images: Book cover is fine. The map was easier to read in 2020 when it had the green "Mirkwood" but it still mystifies me a bit (happy with licensing). Have you considered adding a picture of the author? File:Tom Shippey by Gage Skidmore.jpg is free.
  • Thanks. I hope the Mirkwood image makes more sense here now with the mention of that forest in the text. I don't think we really need Shippey's portrait here, given that it pops up if one floats the cursor over his name in the article.
    • Not for everyone (people can print the article, and there's no mouseover on my phone), but including the picture or not are both ok.

I think that's all I have for now. Just a more personal question: what's your most recommended book on Tolkien for a mild fan like me who just owns Carpenter's biography and no other significant scholarly material? —Kusma (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, this is the first book you should read; if you have time for a second, more specialised one, Flieger's Splintered Light will be a revelation. Kocher is short, sensible, and readable, but since it predates Christopher Tolkien's efforts it consists in large part of well-educated guesses about the gaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I never have enough time to read books, but I might add this to my lengthy shelves of unread books. I think we're done here once you take another look at the Peter Jackson films / duplication issue. —Kusma (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Kusma: Happy reading, and thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. (But your ping didn't work, you need to make a new line with the username and your signature). For a one-off ping, best to use the edit summary as in this example. —Kusma (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)