Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Hobbit/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:35, 30 May 2008.

The Hobbit
Self-nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because the Hobbit is a very comprehensive, well-written and well cited article, on a very notable subject. It's been peer-reviewed, edited by the league of copy editors and judged A-Class by the 3 most relevant Wikiprojects, and it's ready for FA! Davémon (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I haven't read the article all the way through yet, so I cannot comment on the status of the prose. There are, however, three major issues I can see from just a quick glance that would hold me back from supporting:
 * The lead does not adhere to WP:LEAD in that it isn't a summary of the entire article; there is no info about the book's revisions, style, themes, and very little info about its adaptations; these facts are hugely important to understanding the subject matter and require mentioning in the lead. As of right now it's far too short.
 * The "Adaptations" section is clunky. It looks like the bullet points were removed in order to convert it into prose, but more needs to be done.  It's overly detailed in parts (is the Manitoba Theatre for Young People's adaptation truly that notable?) and lacks important critical/reception information on most of the productions.  Structurally, it's mostly short, stubby paragraphs.  Weed out the more crufty adaptations and concentrate on the biggies.
 * I see more than a few references that are not formatted correct: refs 37, 50 53, 55... María ( habla con migo ) 18:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose While this article is a good start, substantial work remains for it to reach FA level, in my opinion. Here are some suggestions for improvement:
 * The lead needs to summarize the entire article. For example, currently it does not really mention the content of the "Style" and "Themes" sections.
 * This article appears to be sourced mostly to popular books published about The Hobbit. I did a quick check of the MLA database for "hobbit" and found over 100 citations for that book alone. None of the scholarly research done on this novel appears to have been used for this article. This means that it does not "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". This material would allow the writers to add a "Genre" section, for example, and add depth to the "Style" and "Themes" section, at the very least.
 * The article is missing a "Genre" section. This is one of the first fantasy novels. This needs to be discussed! Ideally, such a section would also discuss the novel as a work of children's literature. Much has been written on this topic by scholar of children's literature.
 * The "Characters" section does not add much to the article. I would try to integrate its key points into the "Synopsis".
 * The "Synopsis" is a bit confusing for someone who doesn't already know the story. Its details are introduced without explanation. For example, it is not clear that elves live in Rivendell.
 * Much of the article is written in chunks which do not smoothly transition into the next chunk. This is particularly true in the "Themes" section and the "Adaptations" section.
 * The "Reception" section needs to be expanded. Much more could be said about how the book has been received over the last 60 years.
 * The "Adaptations" section is a prose list. I would suggest creating a separate entire article on "Adaptations of The Hobbit" which could then be summarized here. This section takes up far too much space in an article which is supposed to be about the book itself!


 * As I said, this is a good start, but I believe much more research needs to be done to create a comprehensive article on this important novel. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * I saw that it had a peer review, but I'm curious as to why it is not under WP:Novels. Those folks could give another peer review. It has a "U" rating from WP:Books?? It's tricky what you're writing - a very influential book both to culture and literature. Were I you, I would approach the article as if the reader would be unable to live another day without consuming the book cover to cover. Right now, the article is very meek and needs to be expanded.
 * The lead should jump out and declare without question the novel's importance both to culture and literature, like a blast of trumpets. It should parallel the structure of the article itself by summarizing each section.
 * Expand the characters section - one or more paragraphs per character. Use Tolkein experts for your sources. I would switch the characters and plot summary sections, but if you wanted to include a brief introduction to readers to expect fantasy fiction to be placed above the plot summary, that would be ok.
 * Expand the Style section considerably. Include what Tolkein scholars have written about the style of this book. Provide examples of Tolkein's use of sense of humour, onomatopoeic singing, other elements of style, and how the narration "contributes significantly to the success of the novel".
 * The article presents as if it is written for Tolkein fans, but there are tweaks that need to be included for people unfamiliar with the novel. What you're doing in an FA is showing readers how awesome this book is without it sounding POV. A lot of this can be accomplished by saying Important Tolkein Scholar So-and-So says "blah blah" about the Jungian anaylys of the novel, for example. Use quotes from what has been written about it. What did C.S. Lewis write about it?
 * Expand the themes section to describe them in more detail, using the aforementioned opinions from Tolkein scholars. If there are morals in the novel, what do teachers say about it?
 * The section on Dramatizations reads like a list, as if it were as list and all that was done to it was remove the bullets. If you can put it into clear flowing prose, do that. If not, separate it into a different article on Adaptations of The Hobbit or some such.
 * There is very little about how it ties into the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.


 * Essentially, I think you have a lot of research and writing to do. I'm not a fan of fantasy fiction, but I know how influential this book was. Right now the article lacks enthusiasm, and I think it can be better. I know it can. If you love the book it won't be difficult to do it, though it may take time. Don't get discouraged, but keep at the goal of making this the best article on the novel possible. --Moni3 (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ...but do not overreact neither. I don't think you should aim at showing "how awesome this book is". Cheers, Face 19:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not overreacting. There are ways and there are ways. I'm not suggesting one edit the article to say "This book is so cool it totally rox!" But enthusiasm for the subject is evident in how well the article is researched and written. --Moni3 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tolkien, not Tolkein. :-) (I must help out with this article - I was looking for something to spend time on this weekend!) Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Good article, it's approaching FA status. I have three remarks about the Revisions section:
 * Tolkien altered Bilbo's encounter with the One Ring and Gollum in the second(?) revision. The section mentions this, but the explaination about what was changed is a bit vague (something about how the original was a lie, and how the revision was the truth or something).
 * "In order to make a better tonal fit with its sequel, Tolkien began a new version in 1966, removing the narrative asides. The revision was abandoned at chapter three after Tolkien received criticism that it just wasn't The Hobbit.[26]" What exactly does this mean?
 * The last paragraph mentions the book The History of The Hobbit. This is not exactly a revision, isn't it? Perhaps we should remove that part and mention it briefly at the See also section?


 * Keep up the good work Davemon! Expect to be rewarded if you are able to get this featured! Cheers, Face 19:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE.
 * The book refs, it would be nice to settle on a format that's consistent for them. Some give author (year) title publisher ISBN, some give author title publisher (year) ISBN, some dont' give ISBN, some do. Please format them consistently.
 * Consistentency on either using p as an abbreviation for pages or not in the references would be a good thing.
 * A lot of the following errors would be fixed if you stuck with using the cite family of templates for such things as cite web cite book cite journal cite news which makes keeping refs consistent much easier.
 * Journals need to be italicised, so Journal of English Studies and Mythlore should be italicised.
 * Current ref 2 "Mythopoeic Fantasy Award..." is lacking a publisher
 * Current ref 13 "The Hobbit sells for 6000 pounds" is formatted inconsistenly with the rest of the article. Also the link shouldn't be just a bare link, it needs to be formatted more than a number.
 * Same for current ref 14 "Walne, Toby "How to make a killing " and current ref 15 "The Hobbit breaks breaks at ..."
 * Current ref 20, J. R. R. Tolkein "the Fellowship of the Ring" can you put it in last name first order to match the rest of the refs?
 * Current ref 21 "Rateliff, John D. "the history of the hobbit" is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic information
 * Current ref 31 "Carpetenr Humprhrey "Tolkein A biography" is lacing a page number
 * Current ref 32 "The Hobbit Major Themese Cliff notes needs to have the link formatted correctly.
 * Current ref 37 needs publisehr and last access date.
 * Current ref 38 Anderson, Douglas, ed. The Annotated Hobbit is lacking a page number
 * Current ref 39 Tolkien Society FAQ is lacking a publisher and last access date.
 * Current ref 41 Anderson, The Annotated Hobbit is lacking page number. Same for currnt ref 47 which is the same name.
 * Current ref 46 Nicol Williamson on IMDB needs publisher and last access date.
 * Current refs 51, 52 and 53 are lacking publisher and last access date.
 * Current ref 50 is just a bald link. Needs all bibliographic information, including a title.
 * Current ref 51 "Photos of a performance during book-week in a school what makes this a reliable source for the fact that a play was written?
 * Current ref 55 "The Hobbit Media Coverage at Production is a dead link, also should be correctly formatted
 * Current ref 57 is lacking publisher, last access date, etc. "Del Toro to take charge of the Hobbit."
 * with current ref http://www.asfa-art.org/chesley/2002/paperback/giancola.html are we linking to a copyright violation? Also it's lacking publisher
 * Current ref 63 "Hobbits set for opera stage ... is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
 * Current ref 64 Dean Burry the hobbit in Sarasota is lacking all bibliographic information
 * Current ref 67 "What is MERP?" is lacking publisher and last access date. Also what makes this a reliable source?
 * Current ref 72 Crash Magazine needs to be formatted consistently with the other magazine articles. Link needs a title.
 * In short, the references are a mess and need some serious clean up to make them consistent with each other. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments All in all, this does need a lot more work for FA - unless you're willing to handle an incredible amount of tedious work and copyediting during this nomination, I'd suggest withdrawing. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * MOS
 * A longer and more comprehensive lead would be nice, but not required.
 * Inconsistent date linking. Sometimes you link years, sometimes not. I'd recommend not unless they're part of a full date. Also, I'm fairly sure that decades should be linked.
 * There should be a non-breaking space between a number and the units it's being measured in (if applicable)
 * Inconsistent date formatting - I see a 21 September 1937 in there, but also a September 21, 1937.
 * Both English and British spelling are present in the article - please stick to one.
 * Both American and British? Note that -ize endings are acceptable in UK English, and some claim that Tolkien preferred them (no, I don't have a ref for that!). 4u1e (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes go after punctuation.
 * Grammar and prose
 * Redundancy - "His journey takes him from light-hearted, rural surroundings and into darker, deeper territory" - is "and" really necessary? There's probably other examples as well, look out for these; these are the hardest things to detect around.
 * Sometimes Dragon is capitalized, sometimes dragon is not. Consistency! Same goes for Elves/elves - High Elves and Deep Elves is fine, but Elves by itself should either be capitalized or not, corresponding to the dragon case.
 * "The group travel into the wild" - should that be "travels"? I'm not all that great at grammar, so I never trust my own judgement.
 * "The goblins and Wargs give chase and the company are saved by eagles before resting in the house of Beorn, the skin-changer." - awkward sentence, possible rephrasing?
 * "In May and June 2007, HarperCollins and Houghton Mifflin published The History of The Hobbit in the United Kingdom. The work examines, in two volumes, previously unpublished original drafts of The Hobbit with extensive commentary by John Rateliff." - isn't it The "History of The Hobbit" on the book cover, and thus, when italicized, be "The History of The Hobbit" (the double italics cancel out - I've seen this done many times)?
 * Other
 * As mentioned above, a genre section would be needed.
 * A paragraph in the "Style" section contrasting the narrative style of this novel of this novel and that of Lord of the Rings would be nice - if sources exist, which I'm fairly sure they do.


 * Oppose: criterion three concerns:
 * Image:TheHobbit FirstEdition.jpg source field is blank; why are two book covers (see image in next bullet) needed (WP:NFCC#3A)?
 * Image:Hobbit cover.JPG is not low resolution (NFCC#3B) and does not have a rationale (NFCC#10C).
 * Image:Hobbit-conifer-tape-box.jpg is not low resolution. What significant contribution does a cassette cover make to our understanding of this work (NFCC#8)?
 * Image:Gollum1989graphicnovel.jpg has no rationale. What significant contribution does seeing a comic book version of Gollum make to our understanding of this work (NFCC#8)?  The Non-free comic license allows use only in articles critically discussing the comic itself, the comic series or the character itself.
 * Image:Hobbit adventure packaging.jpg: What significant contribution does seeing a software cover make to our understanding of this work (NFCC#8)? ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment / question
 * Firstly a big thanks to everyone for their time and critiques so far. There are evidentially many points that need to be addressed properly to get the article up to FA standard.
 * Secondarily. There have been several requests for information regarding scholarly sources (there are some in the article, including Mythlore, the Journal of English Studies). The secondary literature on "the Hobbit" is much smaller than that of Lord of the Rings and concepts such as "hobbit"s and Tolkiens influence on Genre (childrens or fantasy) generally refer to the greater work, rather than The Hobbit itself. No comparison of narrative structure between Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit nor scholarly references appear in the FA verion of Lord of The Rings. So my question is - are these actually requirements for an FA version of The Hobbit, or just things people would like to see? Davémon (talk) 10:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know Awadewit is going to do this, so I apologize if I am stealing her thunder. The MLA International Bibliography and MLA Directory of Periodicals show 182 results of scholarly journal articles involving issues in The Hobbit. They are overall Tolkein writings ("Clashing Mythologies: The Elves of Shakespeare and Tolkien", for example) or specific to some kind of aspect of the stories ("'In the Hilt Is Fame': Resonances of Medieval Swords and Sword-Lore in J. R. R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings", for example). But they're there. Are they required or just things people would like to see? That's difficult to answer. But suffice to say that I think the article is incomplete, and these articles could assist in your expansion. They can be found in an academic library, but you can try your local public library to try to assist you with it, too. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Small point: The Lord of the Rings needs to be taken to featured article review (FAR) for just these reasons - it is lacking a discussion of fantasy, it uses few scholarly sources, etc.. It is not a good model for a literature FA. Using scholarly sources is required, IMO, to fulfill 1c - the article should "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge". Awadewit (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for clarifying the points and addressing my questions. The precedent set by the FA LoTR article was one of the reasons I expected that The Hobbit was ready. In light of the literary scope being applied, I agree the LoTR article deserves a review, but haven't the time to put into that project. There is much of value to be found in scholarly literature, yet unfortunately little regarding genre (which has been requested twice) nor specific individual examinations of The Hobbits themes outside a cursory examination in relation to studies of Tolkiens larger works. Nontheless, there is material which would improve the article. --Davémon (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jim Dunning | talk  18:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most of the above, as well as straightforward, but important items like inconsistent British versus American usage and the Lead should be more focused.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.