Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring

The Fellowship of the Ring is currently a Language and literature good article nominee. Nominated by Chiswick Chap (talk) at 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: 1954 part of novel by J. R. R. Tolkien

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Fellowship of the Ring article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 27, 2020	Articles for deletion	Kept

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2006.

Middle-earth Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Structure table

The 'Structure' section is supported by a table, which performs several functions. It identifies the distinctive flashback-narration chapters, and their narrators; it shows the similarity in structure of the two books in the volume; and it visually sets the flashback chapters in context with lists of the preceding and following chapters, illustrating their equally distinctive long single narrative thread (in the context of the rest of The Lord of the Rings), serving to indicate just how unusual they are in position and relative quantity. None of this can readily be brought out in a block of text, which conveys just one visual message, "there is a block of stuff". For readers who appreciate articles visually, tables, maps, diagrams, photographs, infographics, and even infoboxes offer ways into a subject – English may not be their first language, or they may 'think visually' – which words alone do not offer. This would seem to be more than enough justification for the table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for the courtesy of fitting deed to word by starting the discussion.

It's ironic that you cite visual communication as the reason you undid my edit, as that was the exact reason I made it. I thought that as the information is quite simple and easily conveyed via text that the table was merely repeating what had already been said, while marginalising the text and making it harder to read. The hatnote also looked odd in such a short section.

My original thought was that as this was essentially a de gustibus matter, there was no point in discussion, but I tried putting the table under the text and removing floatright, which made it easier for me to read - what do you think? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; certainly not my job per WP:BRD but it seemed advisable given the unknown quantity involved. Let's try the formatting you propose; since you ask my opinion, it's certainly worse on a large screen, and will make no difference on a mobile one; perhaps for those with some intermediate-sized gadget, it will appear better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick thought: skin makes a big difference here. The article looks better in 2010 because the display space is wider; could that be part of the issue? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, beyond my pay grade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Are Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc. capitalized or not? Because the text is currently inconsistent. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should be, I'll have a go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbit isn't capitalised, here and in Hobbit. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk)

Feel free, capitalise away. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fellowship of the Ring/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo, Chiswick Chap. I'll take this one. I'll will give my initial remarks in a few hours or so. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-readthrough remarks

Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tor.com is now reactor, update the urls and the publisher name; also, the web page says "Blog", so are you sure it's reliable enough?
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
  - The "Sources" that link to ref 26 has tor.com too (also, one Reactor ref uses sfn, other uses the usual template, shouldn't they be consistent?)
    - Fixed. I normally use sfn when there are sources (usually books) reused with different page numbers.

~~are any free-images available for Book II: say their journey from Rivendell to Amon Hen, or the council of Elrond, or something like that~~
- Nothing usable; all the commercial images (and Tolkien's own) are in copyright.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·