A fact from A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 March 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the publication of A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien in 2014 by Wiley-Blackwell has been described as proof that Tolkien had finally attained acceptance by the literary establishment?
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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that the publication of A Companion to J. R. R. Tolkien in 2014 by Wiley-Blackwell has been described as proof that Tolkien had finally attained acceptance by the literary establishment? see reviews by Higgins and Fisher
@Piotrus: Just wanted to make sure that posed no problem. If that's that, then Approved ALT1RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Added both WorldCat ref and the OCLC. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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])
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]