Wikipedia:Peer review/The Hobbit/archive1

The Hobbit

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because a few months ago it had a lot of activity from several editors, all making great improvements. The article has been stable for a while now, and I'm looking for input to guide it to the GA and eventually FA status.

Thank you

Davémon (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 01:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• One big thing I notice about the article now is that it's not aligned to the Novels WikiProject article template. Right now it has good information, but I think the formatting of the article needs to be standardized. It's not difficult to do, but it may require some thought about the appropriateness of some of the information in the article. You can find the article template here.Victorianist (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, an interesting point. I think the editors have been following the model of The Hobbits 'big brother' The Lord of the Rings which had got to FA. Striking a balance between the two models may be the best course of action. --Davémon (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Having read over the article again, what strikes me is that the article has a very solid overview of publication history. As a scholar of literature, however, the article leaves me disappointed since there is very little effort made to bring together the thought of scholars on the book. Here is a list (in MLA format) of some journal articles that probably should be read and reference in the article:

Albero Poveda, Jaume. "Narrative Models in Tolkien's Stories of Middle-Earth." Journal of English Studies 4 (2003): 7-22.

Burns, Marjorie. "Echoes of William Morris's Icelandic Journals in J. R. R. Tolkien." Studies in Medievalism 3, no. 3-4 (1991): 367-73.

Chance, Jane. "Is there a Text in this Hobbit? Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring." Literature/Film Quarterly 30.2 (2002): 79-85.

Croft, Janet Brennan. "Beyond the Hobbit: J. R. R. Tolkien's Other Works for Children." World Literature Today: A Literary Quarterly of the University of Oklahoma 78.1 (2004): 67-70.

Donaldson, Mara E. "Baptizing the Imagination: The Fantastic as the Subversion of Fundamentalism." Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 8, no. 2 [30] (1997): 185-97.

Green, William H. "King Thorin's Mines: The Hobbit as Victorian Adventure Novel." Extrapolation: A Journal of Science Fiction and Fantasy 42.1 (2001): 53-64.

---. "'Where's Mama?' the Construction of the Feminine in the Hobbit." Lion and the Unicorn: A Critical Journal of Children's Literature 22.2 (1998): 188-95.

Hieatt, Constance B. "The Text of the Hobbit: Putting Tolkien's Notes in Order." English Studies in Canada 7.2 (1981): 212-24.

Livingston, Michael. "The Shell-Shocked Hobbit: The First World War and Tolkien's Trauma of the Ring." Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R.Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature 25, no. 1-2 [95-96] (2006): 77-92.

Morrison, Ronald D. "'I Much Prefer History, True Or Feigned': Tolkien and Literary History." Kentucky Philological Review 19 (2005): 36-42.

Sullivan, C. W.,III. "J. R. R. Tolkien and the Telling of a Traditional Narrative." Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts 7, no. 1 [25] (1996): 75-82.

Timmons, Daniel. "Hobbit Sex and Sexuality in the Lord of the Rings." Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R.Tolkien, C.S.Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature 23, no. 3 [89] (2001): 70-9.

Victorianist (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right, there isn't enough in the article about the reception of the book. The Themes and Style sections are quite scant in comparison to the publication history. I'll try to track down some of those essays and integrate some of the material in the appropriate places. Any help in the task would be much appreciated! --Davémon (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If we could get some people to divide up the tasks of reading some of these articles and summarizing the claims into a few sentences, we could probably speed this process up. I'll try to read the first two articles listed here (Albero Poveda and Burns) since they're within the scope of my research. Victorianist (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The References section is a bit of a mess. I would suggest that we should rework the references so that they can be standardized as inline parenthetical citations, with a Works Cited (although it would not have that title, it would go under the current References section) list at the end. I believe this would make the article better conform to the Wikipedia style guide. Footnotes can go in a Notes section, instead of a References section. This way, we don't clog up the article with repeated footnotes to the same page (see the current references section in the article for an example of what I mean). Victorianist (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)