Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
I suspect that there might be enough scholarly coverage to grind out an article on Tolkien's views on peanut butter. Also, that Middle-earth navbox is absolutely wild.
Noted. Of course there wouldn't be; topics are made notable by significant scholarly and critical coverage.
This was an attempt (perhaps a poor one) at humor.
Noted.
Lots of duplinks detected using the usual tool, you should probably remove them.
Removed all those highlighted by the tool.
"the medievalist and fantasy author" Shouldn't this and the link be at first mention?
Fixed.
I actually meant for Tolkien in the first sentence, I've gone and done it.
Thanks!
"the disastrous mistake" Might want to mention why it is heroic; currently, you have to click through two articles to figure out how a mistake could be heroic.
Added a gloss.
Maybe add a gloss for pietas?
Added.
"actions of Fëanor and Galadriel,..., the heroic framework" needs a conjunction somewhere
The clause is in apposition (as a gloss), like "Churchill, Britain's wartime leader".
Images are correctly used and attributed.
Noted.
Is the History channel really a reliable source? I mean, they have an awful lot of shows about aliens being involved with literally every ancient monument. We can surely find a better source about Ragnarok.
The section cites multiple scholarly sources already; the popular source is useful both because it is simple and approachable, and because it summarizes the whole topic briefly, whereas the scholars always dive into one miniature detail or another, taking the basic facts, as clearly stated by the popular source, for granted.
History is not RS according to its RSP listing. I don't mind having a popular history source if all the scholarly sources are too in-depth, but isn't there a source from at least a site like Natural Geographic or Smithsonian magazine?
