Talk:Master of Middle-Earth

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:Master of Middle-Earth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I will review this. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• I have added some sources to a newly-created "Further reading" section. Some of the material from them should be incorporated, such as Tucker's fairly critical assessment of the book's merits and Leibiger's point that the book was not updated to reflect the additional information provided by The Silmarillion.

• Noted. Added Liebiger.

• Says Karen Haber in Meditations on Middle-Earth, "Academic criticism of Tolkien began in the sixties, and reached its highest point in the period before Tolkien's death with Paul Kocher's Master of Middle-earth (1972)". Likewise, Richard C. West writes in The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia that "By consensus the finest book from this period is Kocher's Master of Middle-earth (1972), which looks closely and deeply at the whole body of Tolkien's work to that time. Its insights have held up well for decades." Might be worth incorporating in some way.

• Just added West while fixing item below! Added Haber as well.

Lead

• The caption in the infobox needs a source.

• Added.

• The alternative subtitle The Achievement of J.R.R. Tolkien should probably be noted in the WP:LEAD, especially considering that it features prominently in the image in the infobox.

• Added.

• one of the few to be published in Tolkien's lifetime – this seems like a key point. Which are the other ones? If they have Wikipedia articles (and at least one—Tolkien: A Look Behind "The Lord of the Rings"—does), they should at minimum be listed in a "See also" section.

• Added See also with Carter, Lobdell, and Shippey.

• It focuses especially on the best-selling novel The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit – the description "best-selling" is accurate, but it is not needed in this context and comes off as borderline promotional.

• Removed.

• in the absence of Christopher Tolkien's The History of Middle-earth on the process of creation of Tolkien's fiction – and also before The Silmarillion, which seems important enough to mention in the lead.

• Added.

• it correctly guessed many of his major themes – "guessed" does not seem like the right word. Perhaps "identified"? Or "inferred"?

• Done.

• I might introduce a paragraph break between some of his minor works such as "Leaf by Niggle" and "Smith of Wootton Major". and At a time when scholars were largely critical of Tolkien [...].

• Done.

Context

• This section should probably include a bit more background information on the topic being analysed, i.e. the works of J. R. R. Tolkien. I would for instance make sure to mention when The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit were published as well as when Tolkien lived (a simple "(1892–1973)" would do nicely, I think). I try to imagine what a person who isn't familiar with Tolkien's works (but still happens to come across this article somehow) would find useful.

• Added. We were all taught to imagine a geologist, interested but uninformed about our discipline. Not easy when hundreds of millions have read the books, and even more have seen the films.

• This section should probably include a bit more background information on the state of Tolkien scholarship at the time of the book's publication. The "Tolkien Scholarship: First Decades: 1954–1980" entry in The J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia seems a good starting point for this.

• Added.

• He wrote extensively on the works of J. R. R. Tolkien as well as on Elizabethan English drama, philosophy, religion, and medicine. – I don't find this in the cited source.
  • Edited.
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but I only see

      Paul H. Kocher

      Fellow: Awarded 1946
      Field of Study: English Literature

      Fellow: Awarded 1955
      Field of Study: English Literature

      Competition: US & Canada

      University of Washington

      at the cited source? TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Edited.

• The award seems more like it belongs in the "Reception" section.

• Moved.

• Scholarship in Inkling Studies Award – I'm guessing that's as in The Inklings? In that case, it should be linked for readers who would otherwise be lost (i.e. anyone not familiar with the term "Inklings").

• Linked.

• The Silmarillion appeared (1977) to resolve several of the questions to which Kocher guesses the answer, usually correctly – is that really the right way of describing it? The source says "despite being written prior to the release of the Silmarillion, the necessary guesses Kocher makes about the mythic past of Middle Earth are generally on-target". The current phrasing makes it sound like Kocher's main analyses were validated by The Silmarillion, but the source's phrasing makes it sound like his inferences about the in-universe backstory were. That's a fairly big difference.

• Tweaked.

Book

• Both "best-selling" and "skilfully" are unnecessary and should be removed.

• Done.

• The synopsis seems rather bare-bones. Is this really all there is to say about the contents of the book from a purely descriptive perspective?

• Extended.

Reception

• This section mixes a few different "levels" of reception, to the detriment of the overall impression. Charlton discussing the book's placement in the history of Tolkien scholarship, Sadler reviewing the book, and Treloar engaging with a specific argument made by Kocher don't seem like they belong in the same section (at least not without being separated into different subsections). This also makes the relative weighting of different aspects seem rather odd. For instance: Treloar's response to Kocher's argument about the nature of evil in Tolkien's writings gets quite a bit of space, which seems disproportionate as part of the overall reception but might be entirely reasonable in the context of responses to specific points made by Kocher. I would expect a section like this to rely more on reviews of the book and less on sources citing the book while themselves discussing Tolkien's works than is currently the case.
  • Moved Treloar to new section.
    • That's a good start. The weighting still seems a bit off, however. There is, for instance, only one pre-Silmarillion source cited in this section—Sadler (1973)—but there are several additional ones that could (and should) be. There is Kennedy (1973) who gave the book a positive review but still had some reservations (in reading Master of Middle-Earth, one believes that the study could perhaps have been enriched if Professor Kocher had spent more time in analyzing the relationship between The Lord of the Rings and other epics and romances, especially Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and The Faerie Queene. One would also have welcomed a closer study of the relationships between the work of Professor Tolkien and that of such writers as C. S. Lewis), Tucker (1973) who gave it an outright negative one (Nor is Master of Middle-Earth the type of book one could recommend "for enthusiasts only." I can't imagine many readers of Tolkien's mysterious, numinous story would want this sort of chattering commentary, ever-eager to analyse character, hand out good conduct marks for heroism, and really dig, say, the difference between a dwarf and an elf. [...] Tolkien himself denies any interpretations, but then story-tellers often do. He has also, of course, good reason to dislike and discourage most of the linked industry that has grown up around his books to which, I fear, Paul Kocher's book is yet another undistinguished addition.), and Patterson (1975) who was decidedly positive (Paul H. Kocher's Master of Middle-earth is just the sort of study of Tolkien's ability as a master "sub-creator" which his admirers have often felt ought to be written and which many of them will probably wish they had had the good sense to write themselves. [...] The result is a thorough, brilliant, and warmly sympathetic exploration of the several "other worlds" of which Tolkien has become the master.). TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Added Kennedy; Tucker; Patterson.

• Link Augustine of Hippo.

• Done.

• The quote from Hyde (quoting Kocher) is very lengthy, and I don't know that including it in its entirety is necessary.

• Trimmed.

• What makes http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.com/2013/10/review-of-paul-kochers-master-of-middle.html a reliable source?
  • Bruce Charlton is a notable figure.
    • Sure, but is he a reliable source for this material? From what I can gather, it seems to be outside of his wheelhouse. This would seem to fall under WP:BLOGS, so is it the case that Charlton is an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes.
        • That's a relief. I was a bit worried that it would be necessary to remove the material altogether, which would have been a terrible shame since the observations Charlton makes are good ones. TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• It thus embodied "a lost perspective", absent all Tolkien's posthumously-published writings, including the 12-volume The History of Middle-earth which appeared in the following decades. In Charlton's view, the book therefore has permanent value. – the counterpoint to this is Leibiger's "Kocher [...] was unable to include The Silmarillion (published in 1973 [sic]) in his study, and he never revised this work to include it, which diminishes its usefulness for any audience seeking to understand Tolkien's Middle-Earth works."

• Good find! Added.

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See above.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   See above.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   See above.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See above.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig reveals no copyvio, and I didn't spot any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See above.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See above.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The balance and weighting in the "Reception" section seems off, as noted above. Now resolved.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Fair use rationale seems valid.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Ping Chiswick Chap. TompaDompa (talk) 21:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• All done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Updated some comments. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I did a few final tweaks myself, and believe the article now meets all the WP:Good article criteria. Great job! TompaDompa (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

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.