This review is transcluded from Talk:Tolkien on Film/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 04:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another solid book article -- I will review it! As you've seen by now, I prefer to make more straightforward edits myself rather than doing a lot of back-and-forth, but you should always feel free to change or discuss anything you don't consider an improvement; they're just suggestions, however bold. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another quick and smooth review, though I am going to bounce this back to you for some changes this time: can you consider the background section I suggest? Since this particular book is very specific to its historical moment, a bit more explicit background seems called for to give a suitably broad coverage of the topic. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick additions! I think the new "background" section really improves the contextualization of the article. Happy to pass this now, and thanks for writing another GA! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Appropriate NFUR for the cover; also appropriate that it's the only image. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked through the prose and made not a single change! Very polished -- great to see. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For the source check, I poked through a few parts of Croft 2004 to confirm the synopsis of chapters is accurate. I also checked the cites to Thompson 2006. Everything checks out, accurate without copyvio/CLOP, though I did make a few small tweaks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think the specific context of this book calls for a more fleshed out background/composition/publication section before the synopsis. Something that spells out when the Jackson films were released, and incorporates Thompson's comment that the book came very quickly on the heels of the film. If possible it would also be useful to give some kind of overview of who the authors are (what kinds of scholars/critics). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added.

• Also possibly useful for "background", I notice there is a 2010 second edition, with a rather interesting note from Croft: This collection remains, we feel, the most important gathering of criticism on the film from a literary studies perspective, as opposed to a film studies perspective. Film studies has different aims and concerns, a different vocabulary, and different theoretical underpinnings from those a reader will encounter in this book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Added. It's the same edition, Second Printing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]