Talk:The Hobbit/GA1

GA Review[edit]

"The Hobbit or There and Back Again" – remove the bold and italics from "or"
- "There and Back Again" isn't an alternative title to "The Hobbit", rather it "The hobbit, or there and back again" is the full title of the book. So I think the formatting is correct? --Davémon (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah yes, I remember now. That doesn't need to be changed then. Citations are still needed in some parts of the article. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Format the references according to WP:CITE/ES; it is suggested that {{cite web}} be used
- Done I think the cite being refered to has been tidied.
Resolve the [citation needed] tag
- I think the sentence "The Hobbit has been used as a educational tool..." should just be eliminated. The second half of the sentence would also need a source (effective by whose terms?). I guess one could argue the book is popular because it is used as an educational tool, not the other way around. I don't think it would take away too much from the section to eliminate the one sentence, as the rest of the section pretty much makes the point that it's widely used in education. Black ngold29 17:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. From memory, it was along the lines of 'the book proves popular when taught in class', rather than it already being popular with students, but unfortunately this is another case of not citing something immediately when adding it. I can no longer find the source. The sentance has been removed, until such time as the source re-presents itself. Davémon (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename " Synopsis" to "Plot"
- Done
The "Middle-earth Portal" goes in the "See also" section
- Done
In the Infobox", "NA" → "n/a"
- Done

Gary King (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some information still requires citations. I would suggest finding one to place at the end of each paragraph. For instance, "His creative endeavours at this time also " needs a citation.

Also:

"edition.[29]. Tolkien" – remove extra period
- Done
"The Hobbit sells for £6,000, bbc.co.uk, 26/11/04[1]" – format URLs so they don't appear as numbers, like in this case.
- I've fixed the one you mentioned. As well as a few that needed cite temps.Black ngold29 06:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any updates? Gary King (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to this GA review, I have not worked on the article one bit, but I suppose I could step up and try to fix stuff for the sake of getting it to GA. Black ngold29 06:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a mess right now. Could something like WP:CITESHORT be done so that books are moved to a separate section and only page numbers are listed in the References section? Gary King (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, now that I look at them closer they are pretty bad. I could try to fix them, but it's gonna take a few days probably. If someone wants to help me that would be awesome. Black ngold29 06:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing :) If books were used in the references, then normally that wouldn't be enough for me to mention it, but in this case, several books are used, each themselves several times on different pages, so WP:CITESHORT (and if you want, {{harvnb}} along with {{citation}}) will help greatly in reducing the clutter in the references. Once that section is cleaned up, then it will also be easier to spot any other issues that might exist in there. Gary King (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cites are a bit messy, but I don't understand why all the references need to be completely reformatted. The recent FA Macintosh Classic has references formatted very much like The Hobbit, doesn't use Citeshort or Harvard, and has many of the same untidy problems (although less of them because there are fewer sources). The Murders in the Rue Morgue (a literature GA) similarly is formatted the same way as The Hobbit. Seems to be creating an awful lot of work for something that appears to be a stylistic preference rather than actually improving the article. Why not just update the unformatted cites to be consistent with the cite web / cite book templates already in use? --Davémon (talk) 11:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, some of the web references still need to be formatted. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing the bugs me most is how equal the citation template refs are split with the non temp cites. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation templates there should either be all templates or no templates. I prefer using them, so if there is no opposition I will do so. Black ngold29 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition at all to applying cite templates to the untemplated cites - thanks for helping out with that. Davémon (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Just to keep everyone updated: I think there are only four books that are used for multiple pages throughout the refs. I have those four and just need to spend time working my way through the article and adding the replacements in. I should have time in the next day or two. Black ngold29 06:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few citations that do not give page numbers. If somebody could add them I'll go back though and take care of them, as I don't have any of the books. Black ngold29 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I've caught them all for the texts I have. Its difficult to see what needs page numbers and what has them, perhaps using  comments to flag any would help? --Davémon (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few left. I guess the easiest way to find them would be look down the ref list, and find the ones that look like ref 38, 59 or 60. It uses one of the four sources at the top, but there is no page number. Ref 62 is the same way. Black ngold29 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing those out, I'll take a look when I can. Unfortunately I find the citation list impossible to scan through, it is so badly structured - un-padded numbers followed by repetitious carat symbols, superscript letters (or not), lack of alphabetical order, inconsistent formatting (especially the year in brackets, or not, after the author name. It's a typographic junkyard. --Davémon (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← That's what I've been saying in my review. Gary King (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem with all the other WP articles, its the result of using templates. Updated many. I do not have Carpenters Biography to hand so those may need to wait unless someone can cover that. Davémon (talk) 08:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I actually remember that I do have that biography somewhere, if I can find it I'll look for the page. But I haven't read the whole thing, so no guarentees. The ones you did look good! Black ngold29 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked, but when you have over 1000 books laying around the house it's not always easy to find the one you're looking for (that's a good thing right)? Anyway, I was unable to locate Tolkien: A Biography, but I will keep looking. My purpose of posting is to ask if the refs have improved enough? I still don't think I would even support it for an FA, but that's not why we're here. The important part is that everything does have a source, they're just missing page numbers; are page numbers required for a GA? (I'm sure they're prefered, but ...) Also, if there are any comments about other stuff (wording, etc.) I'd be glad to fix that for a change. Black ngold29 07:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status? Are there any questions for me? I just saw the page numbers question, and yes, they would definitely be appreciated. Gary King (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much done all I can do; I realize the page numbers would be good to have, but are they required for the GA? If they are, then I'm kind of at a loss because I only have one of the books and though I could probably pick up some at the library tomorrow, it would be difficult to locate a single statement in a lenghy book that I've never read before. If they aren't required, then are there any other things that need fixed? I'd be glad to fix those.... Actually, the only statement that needs a page number is "Tolkien claimed later to dislike the aspect of the narrative voice addressing the reader directly,[39]", so if someone could find that info, I think we're good. Black ngold29 02:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's at the discretion of the reviewer. And in my case, I pretty much require the page numbers otherwise it makes it very difficult for others to verify that the references are accurate. Whoever added the reference – if they are involved with this GA – should get the page number to make it easier. Gary King (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← That sounds reasonable to me, I would probably do the same. After looking closer this is what we need:

Cit 6 needs pg. num
- Removed Unfortunately Rateliffs index isn't as comprehensive as I'd wish. It's an uncontroversial statement, so perhaps the citation should just be removed.--Davémon (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what 10 is (book, magazine?)
- It's bibliographic information about the book (an annual collection) [1]. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17 should be split up, with pages given for each individual statement
- Done It looks like all the required information is there, just as one cite, so that should be doable. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21 needs pg. num
I assume that 30 is referring to "The Hobbit", but I'm not sure
- Removed I think it's just the bibliographic information for "The Annotated Hobbit" - not sure it is really required as a footnote here. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39 needs pg. num
- Again, this is footnoted bibliographic information for the edition being discussed, rather than a citation for the comment. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a messege on the talk page, just in case someone with these sources isn't watching this page. Black ngold29 03:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this article's history, but why are you investing so much time in this GA if you aren't too familiar with the article...? :p Gary King (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figure if nobody is going to step up and do what is necessary to get it up to GA, I might as well do so. I hate to see an article fail its GA when it doesn't really have a ton of work to do. The article is rated as A class, but it failed its FA nom; I'm sure it will be FA nom'd again at some point and whatever we fix here couldn't really hurt, could it? Black ngold29 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm certainly not complaining! :) Gary King (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Blackngold. Your input with cleaning up the cites has made an onerios task much lighter. And yes, I wish I'd added the full set of information at the time! There are still coverage and copy issues which need to be addressed before taking the article back to FA - but the references will be much easier to police. --Davémon (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI but someone post a message at the bottom of this page when the article is ready for me to take another look :) Gary King (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates? Gary King (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nobody came forth with the source needed. So either we eliminate the statement for citation 43 or I'm out of answers. Black ngold29 04:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book was out on loan at my local library. However, I found Amazon has a "search inside" feature on Carpenters Biography so was able to find the page refs. Is everything up to scratch now? --Davémon (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations look good to me. I am currently proof-reading my through the whole article. I found one statement (in the "Revisions" section) which references "the connotation of Garden gnomes..." which needs a source. But so far, the overall article is very solid. Black ngold29 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← The article looks very good now, so I am passing it. Great job everyone! Gary King (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]