Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring

The Fellowship of the Ring has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 30, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fellowship of the Ring article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 27, 2020	Articles for deletion	Kept

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2006.

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Structure table

The 'Structure' section is supported by a table, which performs several functions. It identifies the distinctive flashback-narration chapters, and their narrators; it shows the similarity in structure of the two books in the volume; and it visually sets the flashback chapters in context with lists of the preceding and following chapters, illustrating their equally distinctive long single narrative thread (in the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings), serving to indicate just how unusual they are in position and relative quantity. None of this can readily be brought out in a block of text, which conveys just one visual message, "there is a block of stuff". For readers who appreciate articles visually, tables, maps, diagrams, photographs, infographics, and even infoboxes offer ways into a subject – English may not be their first language, or they may 'think visually' – which words alone do not offer. This would seem to be more than enough justification for the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for the courtesy of fitting deed to word by starting the discussion.

It's ironic that you cite visual communication as the reason you undid my edit, as that was the exact reason I made it. I thought that as the information is quite simple and easily conveyed via text that the table was merely repeating what had already been said, while marginalising the text and making it harder to read. The hatnote also looked odd in such a short section.

My original thought was that as this was essentially a de gustibus matter, there was no point in discussion, but I tried putting the table under the text and removing floatright, which made it easier for me to read - what do you think? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; certainly not my job per WP:BRD but it seemed advisable given the unknown quantity involved. Let's try the formatting you propose; since you ask my opinion, it's certainly worse on a large screen, and will make no difference on a mobile one; perhaps for those with some intermediate-sized gadget, it will appear better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick thought: skin makes a big difference here. The article looks better in 2010 because the display space is wider; could that be part of the issue? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, beyond my pay grade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Are Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc. capitalized or not? Because the text is currently inconsistent. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be, I'll have a go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit isn't capitalised, here and in Hobbit. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk)

Feel free, capitalise away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-readthrough remarks

Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? Done
- 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.

~~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

Are numbering like 1), 2) allowed in the text (sorry, I'm not familiar with this part of the MOS) Done
- 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"
    - Added "much reworking" to 'Groping for a story'.

Title and publication

he called "books" along with: comma between books and along Done
- Added.

Reception

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 Done
- Added.

Structure

His friends had to tell him to cut back the Hobbit-talk.: Umm, who said this? Is this part of the preceding quote? Done
- Attributed ("Tolkien's...").
  - Not the pronoun, I meant that it looks like the sentence should be in quotes
    - Not a quote. I've spelt out who the people were who told T. off about this.

* 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

I think "groping for a story would be better before deliberately constructed Done
- 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.

Spot-check

Checking every 5th ref in general

Ref-3: Letter #124 ... I want to publish them both – The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings – in conjunction or in connexion
Ref-6: both big info-dumps ... take the Ring and go, first out of the Shire and then to Mordor.
Ref-11: You can feel secure inside them ... little hobbit can see his dreams come true.
Ref-16: Mr. Tolkien's invention is unflagging, ... at least as good as "The Thirty-Nine Steps."
Ref-23: history of Romance ... new territory.
Ref-27: the structure. ... Subject: Destroying the Ring
Ref-31: the Ring will ‘possess’ and ‘devour’ any creature who uses it, ... ‘The very desire of it corrupts the heart’

Overall

Will review the rest later. Should pass easily, though. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Many thanks!

One change in lead and one change in structure remains. (There was an edit conflict just now, I hope I didn't delete anything by accident) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I believe. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Chiswick Chap, of Wikipedia-Tolkien-editors most renowned. It was a well written article, and very easy to review with only minor issues. Passing it to GA. Well done, hope to be as good a WP-editor as you some day. Congrulations on the GA! DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You editors are courteous folk, whatever else you be! Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·