Talk:The Lord of the Rings

GA?

I know this is a former featured article, but perhaps we could shoot for GA first. Is there anything that needs to be done to meet that criteria? I know the dead links need to be fixed. --Glimmer721 ^talk 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed some references. As to dead links, I think as long as we state authors, titles, dates etc. we don't even need a weblink. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work, it looks like there are only 3. Everything seems formatted correctly. Glimmer721 ^talk 17:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs before the Synopsis are particularly weak. Compare it to "Tale of Two Cities", "Alice in Wonderland" or "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone". Those are succinct reviews that mention briefly plot, sales, awards, writing process. This one gets snarled in really rather inconsequential information about the publishing format, then an explanation of the meaning of the title, then a list of characters, then claptrap about how so many books and fan groups were created. Any of the three examples I gave are preferable -- and I simply picked those at random, as it were, as being major works where I figured Wikipedia editors had hashed out reasonable compromises. This opening is tedious and scents of wandering uncritical fandom adulation. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you loose all credibility when you cite Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone as a good article to compare to. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's rather an odd comment Carl, given that HP&tehPS is a Good Article, and its lead is better organised than this one. 4u1e (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah maybe I shouldn't edit talk pages after toddler induced lack of sleep. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I can relate to that problem! 4u1e (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid to do a major edit, but as this is a bit different from articles which are always known as a single book, etc. How would you suggest we order it? I think the 3rd paragraph should have more plot. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) It might be an idea to work up a revised version in a sandbox, rather than 'live' if you're not sure of yourself. That way you get time to sleep on the result and get comment from others before committing to it! Remember that the lead needs to summarise the whole article, so you can do worse than following the structure of the article. I'd suggest something like

• First para (What is it? As current first para, but lose the bit about being written in stages and add the publication date from the current second para)
• Second para (Plot summary - current third para. I wouldn't expand unless you need to to support a specific point being made elsewhere in the lead)
• Third para (Concept and creation - there are bits in the current first and fourth paras, but this element is hardly covered and needs expanding)
• Fourth para (Critical reception & Themes - use current fourth para for Themes, but bizarrely there is almost nothing on criticism, particularly negative criticism, in the current lead. Definitely needs expanding. Much as I love the book, you can't deny that many critics hated it.
• Fifth para (Publication history - use current second para, but cut down detail on structure of book)
• Sixth para (Adaptations and legacy - use current fifth para)

You might find some of those paras can be combined. Six paras is too many, really. There are other ways of ordering them too - Publication history could go straight after Concept and creation, for example. Having said all of that, it might be wise to ensure that the rest of the article is up to standard before you spend too much time on the lead. 4u1e (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The work I've done so far is found in my sandbox. I've done all except concept and creation, but what I have will certainly need tweaks. I was thinking that the listing of the fellowship could be separated by semicolons instead of commas to make it easier to read (mainly for Aragorn, Boromir, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf)Looking farther into the actual article, shouldn't the "Posthumous publication of drafts" section contain the Unfinished Tales and The Children of Hurin? Or perhaps these are later and I've missed them in my skim. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Leonard Nimoy

I was looking through and found nothing again Leonard Nimoy's song 'Bilbo Baggins'. Should this not be included as it refers explicitly to a main character whereas some of the music included is only inspired. Zunraa (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's about The Hobbit, not The Lord of the Rings, although the timing does suggest that the later book might have been the trigger. Bilbo's not a main character in LoTR. 4u1e (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Mention of banning?

Is there any mention in the article about The Lord of the Rings being banned because it's "santanic"? Listed at ALA and Yahoo. I'm not sure if it ever made the top 100 list, though. Where should it be in the article? Under "Reception"? Glimmer721 ^talk 22:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither ref says it was banned, only that it was burned outside a church on one occasion. Which could just be one individual or small group of people. Unless it's well known for being commonly banned (or burned), I doubt it's notable. 4u1e (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with 4ule. Everytime I've read an article, it was a onsey-twosey kind of deal and my impression was that the piece was basically a "see how close-minded Christians are" article. Ckruschke (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Influences on Harry Potter?

I'm surprised the article makes no reference to its influence (in it's Legacy section) on the 'Harry Potter' series - so many sub-plots in the Potter series seem to be inspired by this book. Off the top of my head, I can recount the 'Undead Army' and the incident where Potter and Dumbledore cross the lake with dead beings trying to pull them in - both of these appear in Lord of the Rings. Anyone has views on whether or not we should add that? wildT (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Got any sources that back those theories up? DP76764 (Talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is just a case of both works being influenced by the same ancient folklore (see ignis fatuus). 2.25.135.134 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)