Talk:The Worlds of J. R. R. Tolkien/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead
 * First sentence is a bit of a run-on.
 * Split.


 * Ditto the second. It could take a period after "Tolkien studies" and/or after "real world".
 * Ditto.


 * The lead describes what the book is; what about adding some of what it says?
 * Extended.

Infobox
 * Per comment below, perhaps this is somewhere the number of pages could be added?
 * Done.

Author
 * Is there anything more to add about him, particularly about why he's interested in Tolkien, and what his basis is for being an authority on Tolkien?
 * Independent research, basically.

Publication history
 * Has it been published in paperback?
 * Not to WorldCat's knowledge, or mine.

Content
 * Is "helps" typically used in this way in British English?
 * Yes.


 * How many pages is the book?
 * 208.


 * Odd that The Lord of the Rings is mentioned only at the end of the section (and not linked), and The Hobbit is not mentioned at all.
 * Fixed.


 * Garth sets out his approach, but what is his approach?
 * Added.


 * The four corners of the Earth sound more like the four corners of Europe and a smattering of Western Asia, given that it's dealing with Norse/Celtic/Greek/Mesopotamian mythology.
 * To a classically-educated pipe-smoking Oxford professor, that might sound just right!
 * Hah, you have a point. It's still in Wiki voice, though, not Tolkien voice. How does Garth introduce the idea of the four corners? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added an attribution. As the article says, the four directions N-S-W-E are Norse myth, Celtic faerie, ancient Greece/Atlantis, and Mesopotamia/tales of Alexander.


 * The second paragraph is quite long and somewhat rambling, and can use a fair amount of work. In particular, it should be split into two or three paragraphs, and given better signposting (probably by describing what Garth is saying by chapter, e.g., "In the first chapter, ... The second chapter explores ...").
 * Split, and added some more signposts. I've found that when I've itemised a book's contents by chapter, I get told to be more fluent, and even once that the ToC is copyrighted! Some you can't win.
 * Oof, you can't please them all! I don't think you need to put in every chapter number (and not necessarily every one that I mention below), but at least a couple would be helpful. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The account does actually describe several chapters in some detail; I've added a couple of chapter titles and a few glosses.


 * "which he explains as two separate statements" — is "he" Garth, or Tolkien?
 * Garth.


 * What is "an unpunctuated aside"?
 * Explained a bit more.
 * Not sure "with invisible punctuation" is any better. What exactly did Tolkien say? Was it written or oral? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Written, but poorly punctuated. I've re-explained the matter in a bit more detail.
 * Can you copy here the sentences in question? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tolkien wrote: "Personally I do not think either war (and of course not the atomic bomb) had any influence upon either the plot or the manner of its unfolding. *Perhaps in landscape. The Dead Marshes and the approaches to the Morannon owe something to Northern France after the Battle of the Somme.* They owe more to William Morris and his Huns and Romans, as in The House of the Wolfings or The Roots of the Mountains." I have added ** to mark where Garth suggests there should be parentheses.
 * , see . (Also, note the citation needed tag I dropped for the quotation I added.) And what is the alternate explanation that people give for this quotation? Is it that the final sentence ("They owe more") refers to the Dead Marshes, not to the plot/unfolding of LOTR? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the citation (Tolkien's letter 226). Alternate explanations are (if Garth is right, as he seems to be) necessarily confused, but yes, the owing more gets all tangled up, hence the debate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would add mention of the alternate explanations. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Another chapter looks at Tolkien's use of the sea" — Perhaps "Another chapter, the [third/fourth/whatever], looks at Tolkien's use of the sea"
 * Named.


 * "his painting of Rivendell" — Published anywhere, or just in Tolkien's archives?
 * Many places, including Garth's artfully-titled "Roots of the Mountains" chapter (and the Rivendell infobox!). I've named it.


 * "a chapter argues that they have" — "the [fourth/fifth/whatever] argues that they have"
 * Curiously they're not numbered, so I've named it.


 * "A chapter illustrates how" — Ditto. Also, this 61-word sentence should be split in two.
 * Or three.
 * "Garth notes that these state that it is by the River Dnieper of Eastern Europe" — That what is by the River Dnieper?
 * The forest of Mirkwood.
 * , how can "medieval legends of the Huns and the Goths ... state that Mirkwood is by the River Dnieper"? Wasn't Mirkwood envisioned well after the medieval era? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Garth agrees with other scholars that Mirkwood/Myrkviðr has early medieval origins. See Mirkwood; I don't think we need to go into that here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See . That doesn't mean that medieval stories mention Mirkwood; they couldn't. It means that Mirkwood is based upon something which medieval stories mention. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But I see you've fixed that already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Tolkien was a philologist" — This sentence reads as a comment, and should be worked into the context of the book somehow. It's also a but of a run-on.
 * Rewritten.


 * "Garth devotes a chapter to towers of guard" — Any other way of saying "towers of guard"/anything to link it to? What chapter #?
 * Reworded; both Minas Tirith and Orthanc are linked.


 * "Tolkien's The Two Towers was intentionally ambiguous as to which of the five possible towers were intended" — "the title of Tolkien's The Two Towers was..."?
 * Fixed.


 * "The chapter on war" — What chapter number?
 * as above. Named.

Reception
 * examining instead "that city's toy industry — Who is doing the examining? Garth? Carpenter? Murphy? I'm also confused about what the correction is. Garth seems to think that Birmingham did not inspire Mordor, but in that case, what is this sentence saying that Birmingham did inspire?
 * Reworded. Far from representing Mordor, Garth suggests that the city's toy industry and buildings had a more indirect influence, on things like Middle-earth's arts and crafts.

Sources
 * What's the location of Frances Lincoln Publishers?
 * London.


 * #1: I would rename the title "Formats and Editions of The Worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien : The Places that Inspired Middle-earth", which is what you see if you place your cursor on the tab.
 * Done.


 * Do any of the authors have Wikipedia articles?
 * I periodically review the list of Tolkien scholars who have articles, but none of these have made it there yet!


 * Can any of the publications be linked (e.g., The Times)?
 * Linked.


 * #4: Suggest renaming to "[Review of The Worlds of J.R.R. Tolkien]". Volume/issue missing.
 * Fixed.


 * #5: For consistency, suggest renaming to "[Review of] The Worlds ...". Also, a 2020 date could be added, since it was around then, and (given the June 2020 release) is very unlikely to have been published before 2020.
 * Done.

Overall
 * , this looks to be in pretty good shape. The big paragraph in "Content" could use some work, but otherwise these should be fairly simple to address. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworked the 'big paragraph'.


 * , I can see you're busy but maybe you forgot this one? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, just procrastinating on this one, —sorry for the delay. I've gone through the "Content" section more thoroughly now that it's been restructured. A few more comments above. Should be good to go once we work through them. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * – I think I've done everything, let me know if there's anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , two comments above, but nothing to hold up the review over. Passing now. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)