Talk:Tolkien and the Invention of Myth

Tolkien and the Invention of Myth has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 5, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Middle-earth Mid‑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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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. Books Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review! I typical prefer to make small edits myself if I think they won't be controversial, but as always you should feel free to change or discuss any that you don't consider improvements. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and that was very quick! I had a few optional thoughts for further improvement, discussed below, but since I had no concerns that were tied specifically to the GA criteria, I'd say this is ready to pass as-is. Well done! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:47, 5 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

Comments

• I've completed a pass through the prose and it all looks good. I personally think the Reception section would be even stronger if the paragraphs were clustered by topic (eg, source of chapters; comments on individual authors; overall assessment) rather than by reviewer, but the current structure certainly works too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As a comment, several of my small prose edits were to add in a little more attribution rather than wikivoice, especially for quality assessments of the works -- e.g., He says that Jeffrey writes freshly.... Something you may want to keep an eye out for. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The one image has an appropriate non-free-use rationale. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I spent some time mulling over that table of chapter summaries. Layout-wise, it causes some awkward sandwiching with the infobox, and it's not an approach I've seen often for a book's synopsis. But it's very informative and concise, and as far as I can see complies with all the MOS requirements for list incorporation. I'd be tempted to come up with some kind of background/composition & publication section that goes above the synopsis, perhaps extracting some of that info from Reception. But I don't think that kind of aesthetic adjustment is tied to any GA criteria, so I will just leave that as an optional suggestion.
• For the source check I checked Leibiger's review and the introduction/table of contents of the book to confirm some of the details in the summary. No issues with verification or copyvio/close paraphrase. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.