Wikipedia:Peer review/The Hobbit/archive2

The Hobbit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it looks ready for an A class rating or even a featured article. The last review was in 2008 and the article has improved a lot since then. It is comprehensive and balanced with a suitable lead section, it is very well-referenced and did not have any edit wars lately.

Thanks, De728631 (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

The lead's a bit on the long side - WP:LEAD recommends a max of 4 paras

See here for dead links

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hobbit_cover.JPG needs a more complete fair-use rationale and should identify the copyright holder, if known. Also, the description refers to a key which is not present on the image page

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hobbit_runes.png: what source was used to create this image?
Shouldn't include full bibliographic info for St. Clair in both footnotes and references. Also, missing date in references

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful about applying unattributed value judgments to characters

Done references have been added. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs - they break up the flow of text

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"where Gandalf saves the company from trolls and leads them to Rivendell, where" - "where...where" is a bit repetitive, as is "development...developing" in "the development of elven languages and an attendant mythology, which he had been developing" - check for other instances

Done, edited. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"where Elrond reveals more secrets from the map" - what map? To this point you've not mentioned one
Need to explain "School Certificate" for non-UK readers

Done, wikilinked. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in use of US vs USA vs U.S.

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"derived from the 16th Century Paracelsus" -> "derived from the 16th-century Paracelsus"

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter prose quotes (less than 3-4 lines) shouldn't be blockquoted

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in the use of spaced endashes vs unspaced emdashes

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Bilbo's title thief or burglar? Laketown or Lake-town? Check for consistency throughout

Done thief has been clarified. Lake-town throughout the article. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watch for overlinking - for example, you wikilink World War I twice in a single paragraph

Don't include terms in See also already linked in article text

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not, whether publisher locations are included for books or not, how the authors/editors of larger works (ie. "In...") are notated, how Times Online and Times refs are notated, how multi-author citations are notated, etc

Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation formatting produced by {{ME-ref}} doesn't match that of the other templates used

Done, changed templates. De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FN 5: is a more reliable source available? Also FN 46, 65, 97. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done De728631 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the feedback. Not sure about the lead though, I've recently gotten advice that even Good Articles should sum up every section of the article in the lead and that's a lot to write about. ISBNs are a tricky thing because hyphenation mostly depends on the online source, e.g. Amazon only hyphenates 978- and nothing else while the numbers are course properly hyphenated inside the books. "See also", USA, overlinking and such can of course be addressed. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you might have overlooked that File:Hobbit_runes.png has a source named in the figure caption (Anderson, 2003). I'm going to put that on the Commons file page. De728631 (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the map is in fact mentioned in the second sentence of the Plot section, before the Elrond reference: "hen the music ends, Gandalf unveils a map... ." De728631 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, missed that, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking may be an issue but I don't see any problem with World War I in the Interpretation section, the second instance is actually piped as "the Great War" and the reader might not know that term. So two links in one paragraph are justified. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we're assuming the reader does not know that term, why use it at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because yet another "World War I", even if unlinked, would really be repetitive, and WP can be educational and diverse at once. I have however linked the very first occurence of "World War I" in the lead so there's only one link left in the interpretation part, namely the Great War. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References: FN 5, is SparkNotes considered unreliable or dodgy? I've replace FN 46 and 65 with reliable sources but FN 97 again is in fact reliable (FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business) providing copies of court files. I don't see any problems with that one. De728631 (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - SparkNotes is borderline, and generally inadvisable for potential FACs. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I've fixed that. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]