# Talk:A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 05:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful to add context on why a Blackwell Companion on Tolkien is noteworthy, for readers unfamiliar with the publisher/series. Higgins calls the list of writers covered in previous volumes an "academic pantheon"; mentioning a few may help (e.g. Shakespeare, Jane Austen). He also says that Tolkien was the first fantasy writer to be included, which seems notable.
Isn't this context in the article already? Do you mean the lead? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Well I didn't know what the Blackwell series was, and found the context in Reception a bit vague. However, this might cross over from the GA "broadness" criterion to FA "comprehensiveness", so I'll just leave it as a suggestion. (I meant in "Background", or perhaps Book since this is vol. 89 of a series.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Olivaw-Daneel Which source gives the #89? On a side note, at one point I wanted to write an article about the Blackwell series, but I couldn't find any RS about it, and even compiling a list of works seemed a major challenge. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Added a Context section on the Series, with examples of both general topics and specific authors. I haven't quite said "this represents the literary establishment" but the point should be clear enough "between the lines". Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I was just about to pass the GA before these changes, but this is helpful. @Piotrus: Higgins mentions it (p. 1), it's also in the book (a couple pages before pub. info). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


### Lead
one of the most prestigious[1] of the reference works dedicated to the field of Tolkien studies – I think "prestigious" needs a bit of elaboration. Per the reviews, there are two factors – the publisher and the lineup of authors – and the first gives it prestige in general academia; the second, a profile in Tolkien studies.
Hmmm, this ties to the comment above, doesn't it? I wonder how to do it without needless OR/peacock. Any suggestions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Looking closer, the reviews use "prestigious" (or similar) to describe the series rather than this volume. Here's a suggestion that tries to make minimal changes: It is part of the Blackwell Companions to Literature, which have been described as prestigious reference works, and features authors well-known in the field of Tolkien studies. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Olivaw-Daneel Nice, implemented. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Gloss Andrew Higgins (Tolkien scholar) or add the journal name (otherwise it's not clear why his statement is notable)
Done (second). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


### Book
Publication history – I think this needs a secondary source
Wouldn't it be fine per WP:SPS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps add a citation with OCLC of the paperback, so that there's a link to Worldcat for verification. (I see that OCLC of the hardcover is already in the infobox). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll ping User:Chiswick Chap who added the original citation, also b/c I find sfn citation system difficult to use. On that note, not sure if the fact that some but not all of the refs use sfn is a problem, it probably would be for FA? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Added both WorldCat ref and the OCLC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The volume begins with a "brief" 12-page – I'd either use the full chapter title or leave it out (current version is ambiguous, could be a MOS:SCAREQUOTE)
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Expand T.C.B.S
Done. Kind of sad we can't link to https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/T.C.B.S. as I don't think this topic is notable to have its own article on Wikipedia... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikilinked to section of JRRT's article where the society is described. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Capitalize chapter names that are in quotes
I changed them to 'the first', 'the second', etc. Do let me know how it reads now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Extended to clarify the five parts of the book, and their individual chapters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
extensive critical approaches part – I'd add the number of pages
I chose to remove the adjective as on second thought it may be editorializng. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
in the "Art" essay – this is the first mention of this essay, so it'd be good to add the section/author
Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


### Reception
He commented that while Lee had felt it necessary to apologise - this is the first time the apology is mentioned, so perhaps reword to something like "He observed that Lee had ... and commented"
I tried some rewording, see if you like it? I'd be happy to consider a full sentence if you'd provide one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I just meant breaking it into 2 parts: He observed that Lee had felt it necessary to apologise for a literary study of Tolkien; in response, Fisher commented it was time to "shake off this defensive note fifty years on" and ignore "those stodgy keepers of the canon who still dismiss Tolkien".[14] Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
More elegant than mine, rewording (just changed to "observing" in the beginning). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Fisher's review is well-covered, but the others seem a bit sparse in comparison. Higgins' review seems the longest of them all (20 pages), so I suggest expanding his paragraph per WP:DUE. (Not saying his paragraph needs to be the longest of the 4; just more substantial than present)
I've added a bit. Most of his review is a detailed analysis of all of the book chapters. I wonder if a wikified table of contents would be fine to add as a section to our article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the review discusses it in detail I'd say it's within the article's scope. Not going to consider it necessary for GA though. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it would be undesirable. The Content section picks out the highlights from the best-known scholars; and the Higgins paragraph captures 'the main points' of his review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Bueno-Alonso quote seems a bit long; if it's retained in full, I suggest mentioning the book he's referring to (Lee & Solopova [2005])
I've added a red link to The Keys of Middle-earth, a cursory glance at GScholar suggests it is a notable book that we need an entry on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Great, and I see it's not a red link anymore; that article's already quite filled out. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
We aim to please... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Suggest glossing the 4 reviewers (it looks like Fisher and Higgins are Tolkien scholars, while the others are more general academics)
My reading of WP:RED and WP:GNG suggests we should hyperlink (I assume that's what you mean by "glossing"?) only scholars who appear to be notable. Fisher is linked already, but I lean towards not seeing Cait Coker, Andrew Higgins and Jorge Luis Bueno-Alonso as notable right now (based on a quick check if GScholar shows their works as being often cited, which they do not appear to be). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
By gloss I just mean a brief note (e.g. "Jason Fisher" → "Tolkien scholar Jason Fisher" when he is first mentioned; which is how I see it done in FAs), not a redlink. But this was just a suggestion, not a GA criterion. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Added glosses. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Image – is this based on the Silmarillion? It'd be good to mention that, and who Thingol and Boldog are (elf, orc?)
Wasn't it User:Chiswick Chap  who added the image? Maybe they'd like to expand the caption, I have to admit I am not particularly familiar with the topic here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Placing it  on hold. Please ping when done/if you have any questions. Thanks, Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll try to get to this over the next few days (just got hit by like 4-5 GANs being opened in a single week). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Olivaw-Daneel: – I think we're responded to everything so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, great I think it's ready. As mentioned above I was about to promote it before the more recent round of changes, but I hope you feel they improved things. Congratulations on the GA. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)