# Talk:Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead

curated by the Bodleian Library and the book written by Catherine McIlwaine — Did McIlwaine curate the show as well?
Yes.
Anything else that could be said about the exhibition (as opposed to the book)? Like what sorts of images did it present?
The same ones as in the book.
The second paragraph appears in only the lead, not the body of the article. It should be incorporated in the body also, perhaps in the "Publication history" section.
Moved.
The book documents Tolkien's creative processes behind works like The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion. — Not expressly stated in the article body. The body does mention "the three major Middle-earth books", but doesn't expressly say what they are in the same way the lead does.
Adjusted lead and body text.
Once everything that is in the lead is also in the body, there should be no need to have citations in the lead.
Fixed.
Contents

What were the Inklings?
Glossed (and linked).
"showing that" — "arguing that"?
Done.
"the exhibition" — See notes above (the exhibition is mentioned in the lead but not the body) and below (out-of-order "Publication history" subsection). I think the solution is to start with "Publication history" and mention the exhibition there, so that when it is mentioned in "Contents", it has already been introduced.
Done; the exhibition now has its own heading.
Can anything more be said about the second section? As it stands, there's only a single sentence.
Extended.
Publication history

Why does this appear at the end of the "Book" section, whereas in The Worlds of J. R. R. Tolkien, it appeared at the top? Also, there's no section on McIlwaine—is it worth adding one?
Moved. There isn't much to say about McIlwaine except that she's the Tolkien curator. This exhibition and book seem to have been her first major outing.
How many pages?
416.
"the same year" — "later the same year"?
Done.
Reception

"McIlwaine is an authoritative editor" — She hasn't been introduced in the body of the article yet. Meanwhile, the lead and infobox style her the author, not editor.
The journal calls her that. Formally she's the author of the book, but of course she's presenting and curating Tolkien's artworks, something that reviewers could reasonably call an editorial job.
Several of the review sound as if they are reporting on the exhibition, not the book. These include the National Review, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and Christianity Today.
Added subheadings to make this clear. Since the book and the exhibition share content, a review of one has implications for the other.
Meanwhile, as summarized, the Norwegian American is saying nothing about either the exhibition or the book.
Rewritten.
Incidentally, the link to Norwegian American lands on an article about "Americans with ancestral roots in Norway". Is it supposed to be The Norwegian American? If so, it can be linked in the references, too.
Well spotted. Linked.
References

Is The British Fantasy Society reliable? Also, that source is missing the author.
It is a long-established and notable institution, specialising in this field. I've put 'Anon' in the author slot.
Overall

The article is in good shape, but it seems to be mostly about the book, even though it purports to be about the exhibition as well. For instance, there is a section (with three subsections) titled "Book", so why no section titled "Exhibition"? --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The intended subject is the book. Since the exhibition is related, it must be mentioned briefly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s not the way it currently reads: "Tolkien: Maker of Middle-earth is an art book and matching exhibition". --Usernameunique (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed.
Usernameunique - I think I've addressed all your comments to date. Please let me know if there's anything else! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, this looks great, and I'm passing it now. As a minor final recommendation, I'd split the sentence on the review by The Norwegian American into two. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, and split that sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)