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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 29, 2006. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- In that case, beyond my pay grade. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Capitalization
[edit]Are Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit, etc. capitalized or not? Because the text is currently inconsistent. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Should be, I'll have a go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Hobbit isn't capitalised, here and in Hobbit. What gives? Clarityfiend (talk)
- Should be, I'll have a go now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- 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)
Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Pre-readthrough remarks
[edit]Before I start reading the article, a few questions/ suggestions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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?)
- Updated. Tor/Reactor staff writers like Nepveu are highly experienced and trustworthy, in fact well worth listening to as well.
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) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
- Good article nominees
- Good article nominees on review
- B-Class Tolkien articles
- Low-importance Tolkien articles
- B-Class novel articles
- Low-importance novel articles
- WikiProject Novels articles
- B-Class children and young adult literature articles
- Low-importance children and young adult literature articles
- Wikipedia articles that use British English