Talk:Tolkien and the Classical World (book)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. As an initial observation, I would suggest placing a hatnote alerting the reader to the existence of the Tolkien and the classical world article at the very top, rather than relegating it to the "Synopsis" section. TompaDompa (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• I've added some links. Feel free to remove them as you see fit.

• Thanks.

• I've located a couple of additional reviews and added them to a newly-created "Further reading" section. There is some material here that could be incorporated.

• Added both.

Lead

• The WP:LEAD is rather brief and could be expanded somewhat.

• Extended.

• unusual in consisting entirely of good quality essays – should be rephrased to clarify that the unusual part is that all of the essays are (in Swain's opinion) good, and not that the contents of the book is 100% essays. This recurs in the body.

• Tweaked.

Synopsis

• an alternative history of Tolkien's life, as a classical scholar – it should probably be spelled out what this is an alternative to.

• Done.

• Swain, Houghton, Ruark, and Beck all bring up that Williams writes in the introduction that the classics are less familiar to a modern audience than they would have been to Tolkien and his contemporaries, so that point should probably be included here.

• Added and cited.

• Angband and Moria should probably be glossed.

• Added.

• "Edain" should definitely be glossed.

• Added.

Publication history

• I fixed the typo stating the release year as 1921 rather than 2021.

• Thanks!

Reception

• unusual in consisting entirely of good quality essays – should be rephrased to clarify that the unusual part is that all of the essays are (in Swain's opinion) good, and not that the contents of the book is 100% essays. This also appears in the WP:LEAD.

• Done, in both places.

• Seeing as you have now created the Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein Stub article, it seems like the {{interlanguage link}} to Danish-language Wikipedia could be removed, no?

• Done.

• I would include Parker's example of the story of the Trojan War being told in classical works like the Iliad and then retold in medieval works like the Geste Historial of the Destruction of Troy.

• Added.

• though he notes that Herodotus too told the tale of a magic ring. – well, no. Parker writes that Herodotus told the story of Gyges, but without the magic ring. Parker compares this story to that of Sméagol when he had recently acquired the One Ring.

• Done.

• Houghton's review is a fairly critical (which is not to say negative) one, pointing out a decent number of factual errors and the like. The summary here doesn't really convey that, to my eye.

• Edited.

• Beck notes that classical references are not "the most important part ... but are nevertheless unmistakably present." – that's not Beck offering his own opinion, that's Beck summarizing Shipley's conclusion.

• Attributed.

• Bouillot's point that the book requires a fair amount of familiarity with Tolkien, but not the classics, should be included. I would probably even include it in the lead.

• Added in both places.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See my comments above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable for the material they are cited for.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See my comments above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See my comments above.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See my comments above.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The book cover falls under fair use, and the other images are in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This is fairly close to meeting all the criteria.

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Splendid! TompaDompa (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

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.