Talk:The History of Middle-earth/GA1
GA Review[edit]
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Will review this later today. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Content and prose review[edit]
I will comment on anything I notice, but not all of my comments will be strictly related to the GA criteria, so not everything needs to be actioned. Feel free to push back if you think I am asking too much, and please tell me when I am wrong.
I have read the text linearly and am commenting on the linear order, so there are some things I complain about that you answer later in the text.
- Lead: perhaps you could also mention JRRT directly
- Done.
- I like the final paragraph of the lead; I just will need to double check that "inadvertently" really is covered by sources.
- Thanks. Readily sourced; [11] Nagy covers it.
- Structure and content: I am wondering whether we should have a little more background and context before we dive right into this. You say a little bit about CJRT later, but I think it is important to know that he has already edited the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales. The HoME series has significantly more of CJRT's commentary in it than his earlier edited volumes, which isn't really becoming clear from what we see here. It would also be useful to know that CJRT isn't only qualified as his father's son, but also as a skilful philologist in his own right.
- Added Context.
- "The History of Middle-earth, written in stages throughout Tolkien's life, was published in 12 volumes" I am not sure I agree with the framing here: it sounds like JRRT wrote a single massive work throughout his life, which was then published with only little intervention by CJRT. This is underselling CJRT's efforts rather massively.
- Ah yes, fixed.
- The table is reasonably sourced to Whittingham, with the exception of the LoTR content that she deliberately omits. The rest of this section is lacking citations. Some of that could be amended by just adding a section at the end with bibliographic details on the editions.
- Added refs, though the text was already bibliographic so citing it feels a bit ... repetitive.
- There is nothing on the US editions (not even that they exist) and who publishes them.
- Added in text and infobox.
- CJRT made many other decisions, not just the exclusion of the Hobbit. I think he deserves more of a spotlight here. I am wondering (and I am not at all certain that this is something you should do) whether it is worth citing his own commentary, like from Vol. 1 "This edition of the Lost Tales in two parts is to be, as I hope, the beginning of a series that will carry the history further through these later writings, in verse and prose; and in this hope I have applied to this present book an ‘overriding’ title intended to cover also those that may follow it, though I fear that The History of Middle-earth may turn out to have been over-ambitious. In any case this title does not imply a ‘History’ in the conventional sense: my intention is to give complete or largely complete texts, so that the books will be more like a series of editions. I do not set myself as a primary object the unravelling of many single and separate threads, but rather the making available of works that can and should be read as wholes." or from the final volume, "Since the ceaseless 'making' of his world extended from my father's youth into his old age, The History of Middle-earth is in some sense also a record of his life, a form of biography, if of a very unusual kind. He had travelled a long road." You are the expert here, and I understand if you want to avoid unnecessary duplication, but some of the discussion in Christopher_Tolkien#Editor_or_author could be quite helpful here.
- Brief context section added.
- Reception: I assume you have focussed here on reception of the (more or less completed) series as a whole? That seems fine.
- That's the goal.
- A life's work: As I have said in too many words already (sorry!), I think content about Christopher could come earlier.
- Context section added.
- How much did Guy Gavriel Kay contribute to HoME?
- Only until 1977.
- "he resigned from New College" we haven't been told what he was doing there.
- Added a brief gloss; Context section now takes the strain, too.
- Editorial framing: here we are getting closer to the story of CJRT. I couldn't access all of Nagy's test, but isn't he talking more about the 1977 Silmarillion than about HoME?
- His remarks apply a fortiori to HoME with its extensive editorial apparatus.
- A similar point (but apparently without the marvellous CJRT=Bilbo quote) is made by Ferré, so my question about the lead section from above is answered.
- Noted.
- Overall I really enjoyed the Analysis/Framing sections. The early sections are a bit less convincing, but probably do not need more than an extra paragraph or two of background material / rearranging. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Source spotchecks[edit]
Numbering from Special:PermanentLink/1228825617.
- 1: looks ok for the claim. Wikipedia has generally stopped trusting random websites, but this one actually is probably as good as anything printed on the topic. Could also be used to source more bibliographical data later. Also should note that deluxe editions were published by HarperCollins, not by George Allen & Unwin.
- Noted.
- 2: as discussed above, does not cover the entire table (probably a good thing otherwise I'd complain about paraphrasing). Technically at least the life events should be cited to something.
- Noted; lists such as tables are basically excluded from the close paraphrasing thingy, as a list can barely be paraphrased. Added a ref.
- 4: reasonable summary. Looking at this review, JSTOR suggested this review of the whole series by Hammond and Scull, which contains a few interesting quotes ("some readers have suggested that the History of Middle-earth should never have been published")
- Noted.
More later! —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- 6: fine (fixing the Heracles/Hercules typo silently is fine). I couldn't find out much about the publication or the reviewer, but this is ok as an attributed opinion.
- Noted.
- 9: fine
- Noted.
No real concerns. —Kusma (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Noted, many thanks.
General comments and GA criteria[edit]
Good Article review progress box
|
- Well written, even if we can argue about the ordering.
- Noted.
- Sourcing is fine, but as of the last version I have seen the content about the History of the Hobbit still needs a reference.
- Reffed.
- Main broadness question is how much background material on Christopher Tolkien and his work to include.
- Added a Context section.
- Generally I am happy with the scope, where almost all of the plot content is delegated to the sub-articles and we just look at the big picture.
- Thank you.
- Main image is ok; your diagrams are quite neat. Is there anything else interesting that could be added? (CJRT/JRRT probably would be repetitive with other articles; is there anything like a JRRT manuscript page??)
- Added context as noted above. Other material would be about the legendarium, the published Silmarillion, or the individual books, as you have observed.
- Captions are fine.
- Noted.
- No concerns with other criteria.
- Noted.
A rather good article (and I hope my suggestions above will help make it better). —Kusma (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Happy with the updates, especially the early Context section. The "Routledge" reference could be clearer on what it is (an article by Thomas Honegger in the J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia, not just a random website) but this is good enough to promote now. —Kusma (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2024 (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.